Talk:Latvian lats

Differing dates

In the table: "Replaced by €, cash 2008-01-01 tentative"

In the article text: "The euro (eiro in Latvian) is expected to replace the lats in 2011."

So which date is correct? (Stefan2 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

2008 is the date set by government, maybe it has been changed recently, as the date is drawing closer, but I haven't heard about it. It is however concidered very doubtfull that Latvia will be able to replace lat in 2008, due to current economic situation, therefore it is expected, that the date will be changed ---- Xil/talk 00:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fourth highest-valued currency in the world

I find it strange that the Latvian lats is the fourth highest-valued currency in the world, especially since the only three currencies with higher values are all in the Middle East. Of Latvia's four neighbours, Belarus has a very low-valued currency, Estonia and Russia also have low-valued currencies, and even Lithuania also has a currency worth much less than the Euro. The only two currencies in Europe worth more than the Euro are the Latvian lats and the Pound Sterling, and even the Pound is getting close to the Euro. What makes the Latvian lats so special? JIP | Talk 20:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually find it quite disturbing as well, so I have changed the article to look for sources for that statement, let's see if anyone answers. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The high value of Lats is due to the exchange rate of 1 lats to 200 Latvian rublis when the Lats was reinstated as Latvian currency in 1993. At the time the exchange rates were high, and the National Bank of Latvia has led a financial policy that kept the exchange rate high since then. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it disturbing? As far as I know it has always been at a high value. The amount of people who use the currency accounts not for much, it depends on many factors that go its way, or being tied to another currency. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Disturbing" meaning "difficult to believe, but it can be true". As you see I have not removed the sentence, I am simply asking for sources. The value of a currency is not dependant of how frequently is used or how many people live in the issuing country. I know by fact that the lat is pegged to the euro, so the euro exchange rate will definitely impact the lat. But to solve the problem, I think a reference to a convertion table is enough. I hope that clarifies the situation, thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference is not the problem, the whole article should have them, I will try and find one for the article. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should make more of a mention of the high value of this currency. However, I'm not sure why people are so surprised about its value. Just because of currency unit can buy more euros or dollars doesn't mean it's a richer country! Look at the Japanese yen, Turkish lira and the old Italian lira where one unit of those currencies were practically worthless. Meanwhile there is the British pound with a higher value than the dollar and euro but this in no way means that Brits are richer than Americans or Germans. They are just numbers.--217.71.45.167 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Latvian or English names

Why does this article use "lati", "santimu" etc.? Surely an English-language article should use English forms of the words? We wouldn't use foreign forms of other currencies when writing in English (e.g. rouble/roubles, dinar/dinars). I will amend the article accordingly unless any of user gives an argument against.

In everyday speech, English speakers would instinctively use "lat" for the singular and "lats" for the plural, ather than "lats" singular and "latses" plural. What are other users' views on this?{{subst:Unsigned|

The current use is correct - it indicates denomination i.e. exactly what it says on coins and banknotes. ~~Xil (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is that correct? Why should an EN article use LV terminology? I repeat that we don't do this for other currencies. Just one example: do we use the Russian plural instead of EN "roubles"? No. And it would be flat wrong to do so. Similarly, it is wrong in EN to write "10 lati" and "50 latu" etc. You need a better reason that this to justify the allegation that an EN-language tourist would say "50 latu is too expensive". He wouldn't.Tdls (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you open the article I linked and read it? The article does not use Latvian terminology. The article uses denominations when describing banknotes and coins. It does not reflect actual grammatical inflections used in Latvian when talking about money, but inscription on coin or banknote. The article seems to use "lats" when referring to currency in general. And claiming that "we don't do this for other currencies" when your proof is articles on currencies likely with names in non-Latin alphabet is questionable, actually looking into other articles shows varied choice of terminology (e.g. look ar currencies of Nordic countries - all use native plural). Reflecting what is actual denomination might be important for anyone interested in how coins and banknotes look - e.g. your tourist might be pleased to learn that a banknote saying "50 lats" would likely be a forgery ~~Xil (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, but couldn't see much relevance. I accept your point that my examples were not greatly relevant either. As regards Latin script, a quick shufty at Wiki shows, for example, that the articles on EEK and LTL use the native terms, but the article on the German Mark uses normal EN. Many conclusions are possible here. One could be that currencies we have had extensive contact with get Anglicised (no EN speaker would have said "50 Mark"; we pronounced "francs" as if it were an EN word; etc.), but more exotic currencies less so. In spoken use, though, no EN speaker would be capable of saying "20 santimu" - or even "1 lats", as you will surely have noticed. Perhaps a more correct concluusion is that articles written about countries with which most EN speakers have little contact tend to be written by people from those countries, whose mother tongue is not EN (your good self, for example). Still, there it is: EN is the world language and unlike, say, LV, does not belong only to its native speakers. For these reasons, it does not hugely matter what terms this article uses and, although absolutely incompatible with EN, the native terms might well be interesting to any language enthusiasts reading it. I'm backing out on this one.80.187.201.88 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, the above contribution is from me. I had somehow got logged out so it appears an anonymous.Tdls (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Was about to make similar comments about the use of Latvian terminology in an English-language text. No-one writing about better-known currencies would ever use the original names. What makes the whole business especially confusing in this case is that Latvian frequently uses the -s ending for singular nouns, whereas in English -s is the mark of the plural. In normal English the singular is "lat" and the plural "lats", and what appears on the coins and notes is surely irrelevant in a general discussion such as this. To take a similar case, when Slovenia had its own currency, the tolar, the printed name had different case endings according to the grammar - but in English it was always "tolar" in the singular and "tolars" in the plural. Similar issues arise with currencies named in other Slavic languages such as Polish and Czech - in English it's always "zloty/zlotys" and "koruna/korunas", regardless of the original Polish and Czech forms. I'm sorry to see that the previous commentator backed down in despair, as I entirely agree with his/her arguments. This is a simple question of linguistic usage - "a lats" is simply not English. Oh, and I'm a native English-speaker and a professional translator, so I do know what I'm talking about!89.212.50.177 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

santīmi (singular: santīms, plural also santīmi)

Eh, what is the difference between "santīmi" and "santīmi"? --82.69.159.205 (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Perhaps it's a result of common typo and someone meant "santīmu", however that is because of inflection, which makes the statement somewhat incorrect and I don't think grammar discussion is relevant to lead section. ~~Xil (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)