Word of the week—Stadia versus stadiums


Stadia versus stadiums

This week more FIFA executives are denying corruption charges; the awarding of the 2022 FIFA Soccer World Cup to Qatar (which Australia had tried to bid for) is again being questioned; and Sepp Blatter (pictured), the man in charge, was re-elected unopposed as FIFA president.

But this all obscures another corruption, a corruption of our language. The crime is an example of what Fowler, in his Modern English Usage, refers to as didacticism, or sometimes, as pride of knowledge. It occurred during the unsuccessful Australian bid for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup of six months ago: the bid spokespeople and the press all used stadia as the plural of stadium.

In an earlier post on my website I referred to my abhorrence (perhaps even a little didactically) of the use of fora as the plural of forum. Using stadia instead of stadiums is almost as bad. Although most dictionaries list the plural of stadium as stadiums or stadia it is time to eliminate the pompous use of stadia. There are good reasons to do so. Stadium has a different story to flora but the story provides us with very good reasons to pluralise it as stadiums rather than the pseudo-Latin stadia.

Origins of stadium

In classical Latin a stadium is a length. It is derived from the ancient Greek, stadion (anglicised as stade), a length of 600 feet, or approximately 180 metres. It did not come directly into English because early English used a similar measure, furlongs. Furlongs was used to translate Biblical references to stadia, but they are otherwise unconnected. Furlong derives from the Old English words furh (furrow) and lang (long) and originally referred to the length of a ploughed furrow in medieval strip farming (an eighth of a mile or 201 metres).

The stadion was the length of a running track in Greece. The length of the stadion was 176 metres. The first Olympic Games consisted of only one race run over the stadion at Olympia. Spectators were seated on tiered seats around the track, and hence the structure for watching a running race became known as a stadion or stadium.

Stadium, when first imported into English in about 1600, meant a running track. Its meaning was broadened in the early 19th century into its modern usage meaning large oval structures with tiers of seats for viewing a sporting event.

Amphitheatres, arenas and circuses

What we in modern English refer to as stadiums were not referred to as stadiums (or indeed, stadia) by the Romans. The main sporting events that the Romans attended were battle recreations, gladiatorial combats, and chariot and horse races. The venues they built for these events were not called stadiums but were variously amphitheatres, arenas or circuses (venue is from Latin venire meaning to come).

The most famous Roman sporting venue was the Flavian Amphitheatre, more commonly known as the Colosseum in Rome. It staged many events involving gladiators, wild animals, hunts, and battles. Amphitheatre derives from the structure being imagined as two theatres built facing each other, from the Greek amphi-, on both sides and théātron, for theatre (meaning place for viewing).

Arena, from the Latin, harena, is a place of combat and is thought to have come from Etruscan for sand or sandy place. The central stages of arenas were filled with sand to soak up the blood from the sports played there. (Paris has the Arènes de Lutèce, the Roman arena that now hosts schoolboys playing soccer and old men playing pétanque but once hosted gladiators).

The Latin circus, simply meant ring, from Greek, kirkos for circle. The Romans used circus for circular arenas for performances and contests and also for the oval courses for horse racing (especially the Circus Maximus in Rome).

False didacticism

So what does all this mean? It means that the word stadium was used by the Romans and Greeks to describe a place to watch a footrace, the plural being stadia. The places the Romans watched big sporting events were amphitheatres, arenas or circuses. Stadium, therefore, is a word that has was adopted into English only recently to describe large sporting venues and should be treated as an English word with plural, stadiums.

The Romans would not have called a venue for a football game a stadium, it would have been an arena, an ampitheatre and perhaps even a circus but not a stadium. So using stadia to describe a collection of soccer venues cannot be historically nor grammatically justified. This didacticisim is false.

For more words of the week visit the Madrigal Communications blog

Views: 93

Comment by Jonathan Shaw on June 21, 2011 at 10:32
You know, I just googled rendezvouses and it looks as if you were right the first time. The usage rendezvouses for the plural of rendezvous does exist. I may be a complete pedant of the sort you describe, but I'd find it hard to use the word without comic intent, ay least if it's pronounced as written. Actually, I don't think that's pedantry at all -- just for anyone with a smattering of French it would feel so weird. I guess if I were to use a form of 'rendezvous' in place of 'meets' in the sentence, 'She meets with her lover every Wednesday afternoon,'  I would pronounce it as in the singular but would sound the final 's', but in writing I'd be invlined to keep the spelling the same, whatever the dictionary said. But I don't think that's pretentiousness – do you?
Comment by Tim Entwisle on June 21, 2011 at 11:05

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. Rendezvous is different to stadium in that rendezvous is still not an entirely naturalised English word. It is an obvious French word by its construction and is used, let me speculate, to give that foreign, exotic, romantic flavour—that is we don't want to fully naturalise it. So I think your/our uncertainty is justifiable and your solution not at all pretentious. Pronunciation rather than spelling may be an escape here: rendezvous is pronounced rondy-voo (in singular) and in plural in English we use rondy-vooze (ie not rondy-voozes). Hows that?

Also I don't think pedantry is a bad thing. False pedantry is the bugbear. 

Comment by Jonathan Shaw on June 21, 2011 at 11:32
I think we think alike!
Comment by Jonathan Shaw on June 21, 2011 at 11:33
Including thinking that pedantry isn't a bad thing, but ill-informed pedantry is a pain.

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Sydney Poetry to add comments!

Join Sydney Poetry

On Facebook

@sydneypoetry

Social

© 2024   Created by Adrian Wiggins.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service