# Dios



## MarX

Hello!

After reading that in Ladino the word for "God" is *El Dio* instead of *Dios*. I wonder whether *Dios* was originally plural. If not, why the final S?

Gracias!


MarK


----------



## Outsider

It was already there in Latin: *Deus*. But no, it's not a plural.


----------



## MarX

Didn't the latin ending -*us* become *-o* in Spanish?
Furthermore, in Valencian, French, Italian and Romanian there is no *-s* either (_Déu, Dieu, Dio, Dumnezeu_).


----------



## Outsider

MarX said:


> Didn't the latin ending -*us* become *-o* in Spanish?


The Latin ending _-us_ generally did not give anything in Spanish, because most Spanish nouns are derived from an accusative form in _-um_ (for masculine nouns, etc., etc.)

The word for "God" may have been partially relatinized at some point, readding that final "s" which had originally been dropped. This happened in Portuguese, as well, whose medieval word for "God" was _Deu_ (then spelled _Deo_), but whose modern word is _Deus_.


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

MarX said:
			
		

> Furthermore, in Valencian, French, Italian and Romanian there is no *-s* either (_Déu, Dieu, Dio, Dumnezeu_).


In Italian and Romanian it's not very common for nouns to end in *-s* (especially Italian, maybe only 2% end in -s) due to the formation of plurals formed through morphological augmentation meaning that the last vowel/letter is modified to avoid the *-s*. 
In any case, _Dios and Deus_ (Spanish/Portuguese) come from _Deus_ in Latin like Outsider said, which in French I'm guessing it was modified for sound purposes (similar to the # *two* in Spanish/Portuguese "dos/dois" but "deux" in French from Latin _duo _which has the opposite effect of your main point).

So when you say goodbye in Spanish "Adiós" you can notice the accent on the O while French just adds *a-* "Adieu" (less common). The sound definetely changes throughout all languages.


----------



## palomnik

It's common for words related to religion, toponyms and personal names to retain older forms in a language than the rest of the language does. It seems to be a universal phenomenon.  I've always understood that to be reason for _Dios._


----------



## aleCcowaN

Deus in Latin, Theos in Greek (as Zeus), the ending -s seems to be present in Indo-European words meaning God. You are absolutely right this ending -us didn't survive in Spanish, but we have to remember that people heard mass in Latin during centuries until not so long time ago, then, I suppose -I wasn't born yet- a lot of "Deus" could be heard in churches, making possible that -s ending to survive in our language. 

By the way, here at B.A., you can hear now and then "¡Ur Dió!" and "¡Meu Deus!" as substitutes, some times popular, some times jocular, to "¡Ay, Dios mío!".


----------



## OldAvatar

MarX said:


> Didn't the latin ending -*us* become *-o* in Spanish?
> Furthermore, in Valencian, French, Italian and Romanian there is no *-s* either (_Déu, Dieu, Dio, Dumnezeu_).


Romanian *Dumnezeu* etymology is not simply _Deus _but _Dominus Deus_, which resulted in *Domnu *+ *zeu* and further *Dumnezeu*.

Best regards!


----------



## MarX

LOL! So in Romanian, *Deus* developed into *Zeu*, which reminds one of the Greek deus. 
Thanks for the info, OldAvatar!

What Outsider said in #4 is probably right. *Dio* was at some time relatinized into *Dios*.


----------



## Outsider

MarX said:


> So in Romanian, *Deus* developed into *Zeu*, which reminds one of the Greek deus.


And history repeated itself, since Latin _Deus_ and Greek _Zeus_ are cognates.


----------



## avok

I guess, Sephardic Jews use the word "Dio" but not "Dios" because they believe in the existence of "one" God and the use of "dios" which sounds plural, even if it is a singular word, might have been seen something dangerous for the oneness of God according to Judaism.

Remember that Dios is used by Catholics (Christian Spaniards) who believed and still believe in "Trinity", according to which God has three different persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) even if He is only. Therefore Jews who dont believe in Trinity might have wanted to use a singular sounding form of Dios which is Dio.


----------



## Outsider

avok said:


> I guess, Sephardic Jews use the word "Dio" but not "Dios" because they believe in the existence of "one" God and the use of "dios" which sounds plural, even if it is a singular word, might have been seen something dangerous for the oneness of God according to Judaism.


I find it much more likely that the language which they speak -- Ladino -- preserved the medieval form of the word, which in Spanish was also _Dió_.



avok said:


> Remember that Dios is used by Catholics (Christian Spaniards) who believed and still believe in "Trinity", according to which God has three different persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) even if He is only. Therefore Jews who dont believe in Trinity might have wanted to use a singular sounding form of Dios which is Dio.


I can only assume that you don't know much about Catholicism! Any Catholic who seriously suggested that there is more than one god would be risking excommunication.


----------



## avok

Outsider said:


> I find it much more likely that the language which they speak -- Ladino -- preserved the medieval form of the word, which in Spanish was also _Dió_.
> 
> I can only assume that you don't know much about Catholicism! Any Catholic who seriously suggested that there is more than one god would be risking excommunication.


 
Dio in medieval spanish: I did not know that. Is it the same for Deus? 

About the Christian spaniards and trinity , not to offend anyone I qoute it from *Wikipedia* as I did in my earlier post #*11* 



> By the same token, monotheistic religions may still include concepts of a *plurality of the divine*, for example the Christian Trinity, in which *God is only one* but has *three different persons* (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). Also, for Christians, God has *two natures* (a divine one and Human-Jesus Christ) and only God can be adored as such. Christians of a catholic tradition venerate the Saints among them Mary as human beings that had remarkable qualities, have lived their faith in God to the extreme and continue to assist in the process of salvation for others.[3]


----------



## Outsider

I am no theologian, but I'll accept the term "plurality of the divine", provided it's not understood as a synonym of "polytheism". Catholicism is absolutely not polytheistic. In every Sunday at mass, the faithful recite the following prayer:

_Creio em um só Deus, Pai todo-poderoso, criador do céu e da terra, de todas as coisas visíveis e invisíveis._ 
"I believe in one only God, Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible."​I also don't understand why the Sephardis should be so concerned about using a (hypothetically) plural word for God. After all, one of the most common Hebrew words for "God" in the Bible, _Elohim_, is morphologically a plural, too.



			
				avok said:
			
		

> Dio in medieval spanish: I did not know that. Is it the same for Deus?


See what I wrote above.


----------



## aleCcowaN

avok said:


> Remember that Dios is used by Catholics (Christian Spaniards) who believed and still believe in "Trinity", according to which God has three different persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) even if He is only. Therefore Jews who dont believe in Trinity might have wanted to use a singular sounding form of Dios which is Dio.


I don't think so, most of all as that "condominium" of divinity wasn't and isn't a consideration of common people. French and Italian people are "as catholic" as Spanish people but they haven't the extra -s, and they also have heard mass in Latin until 20th century -what I discussed in an earlier post-. French is excused of pronouncing any extra -s, but Italian is not.

Thinking again about this issue, and looking up in medieval text databases I found the use of "Deus" or "Dios" but hardly ever "Dió", I suddenly realized that unless French and Italian, Spanish has a very common word "dio" (he, she, it gave, but with extended meaning, like English get - "dar" has 53 meanings in our dictionary-). Well, I thought God deserves a word only for that Holy person, then it made sense to me to keep the extra -and apparently unnecessary- s.

Then I remember something that is very important for a Christian, and I think even more important for a Muslim: Don't take the name or God in vain!

This is strong enough to keep the unneeded -s in Spanish, avoiding all this daily "Dio" here, and "Dio" there, that desecrates the name of God. 

Just a hypothesis.


----------



## avok

Hi Aleccowan, 

Nice hypothesis, but I did not say that spaniards added extra s to make reference to trinity  I just though that Sephardic Jews might have seen "Dios" as a plural word. Of course they knew it was singular.

Can we learn if the word "dios" had been in use at the time of the Expulsion of Jews from Spain ?? If the word "dios" had not been in use, Jews brought the word "Dio" with themselves to Turkey, otherwise, they chose to "keep" dio and there must be a reason for that.

Outsider, I read your link and look what I found



> _about the word *Elohim*_
> 
> .......In another view that is more common among a range of secular scholars, heterodox Christian and Jewish theologians and polytheists, *the word's plurality reflects early Judaic polytheism*. They argue it originally meant "the gods", or the "sons of El," the supreme being. They claim *the word may have been singularized by later **monotheist** priests* who sought to replace worship of the many gods of the Judean pantheon with *their own singular patron god **YHWH** alone*.


 
So Jews encountered the word "Dios" which looks like plural "after" the early Judaic polytheism but they already had the word "Elohim". But later, an encounter with a plural sounding word might have concerned the Jews but I shall never know that for sure


----------



## Outsider

The bottom line is that _Dios_ is not a plural, and has never been. The plural is _Dioses_. The Sephardis would have to have been very ignorant to think that _Dios_ was a plural, which I don't believe that they were.


----------



## aleCcowaN

avok said:


> Can we learn if the word "dios" had been in use at the time of the Expulsion of Jews from Spain ?? If the word "dios" had not been in use, Jews brought the word "Dio" with themselves to Turkey, otherwise, they chose to "keep" dio and there must be a reason for that.


The  database contains very many cases for Dios from 1030 to 1492, and many cases for Deus that are not in Latin. It's difficult to say how many of them are original, as most texts survived in later copies and prints, that is, the more ancient and reliable copy for a text dated in 1200 is perhaps a print in 1550.

Here is an example, from Setenario, written by king Alfonso X the Learned some time between 1252 and 1270, containing Dios and the plural dioses:


> "Thetica quiere dezir deidad ssobre todas las deidades, e por esso la  llaman en latín Deus Deorum, que es tanto commo Dios  de los dioses; non porque ssea  otro Dios ssinon él, mas porque los antigos llamauan a los ángeles e a los omnes  ssantos e buenos dioses et sse mostrauan que las uertudes que ellos auyen, que  les viníe de Dios el mayor, sso cuyo poder eran."
> 
> REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA: Banco de datos (CORDE) en línea._ Corpus diacrónico  del español._ http://www.rae.es 23/10/2007


There are many examples of Deus in personal letters dated around 1500. But the language you call Spanish is not a unity today, neither it wasn't during those times. Spanish constantly "refueled" in Latin and some times fought against any language that may compete with it. The Jews in Spain spread in several regions with different languages. Spain received Jews refugees from other countries (Portugal, France, England) and then expelled all remaining Jews, after several massacres and forced conversions during 14th century. Jews were stir up through the whole peninsula and all its languages, many Jews expelled to the Ottoman Empire came from Valencia and Catalonia, Catalan speaking regions. I suppose the word "Dío" existed from early medieval times.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Outsider said:


> The bottom line is that _Dios_ is not a plural, and has never been. The plural is _Dioses_. The Sephardis would have to have been very ignorant to think that _Dios_ was a plural, which I don't believe that they were.


 
On Orbilat I read:


> Dio (_modification of Sp. _dios _..._) _the Spanish word was modified, because the final -s appeared to the Jews a plural suffix; moreover Dio was used always with definite article_ *(El Dio)* _to underline the monotheistic principle of Judaism._


 
This looks like a pretty normal phenomenon to me and I fail to see what this kind of re-interpretation has to do with 'ignorance'.

More or less the same happened to the Germanic word 'goþ'. This word was grammatically re-interpreted because of religious ideas: from a neuter collective plural (Germanic pantheon) to a masculine singular (Christianity).

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Outsider

Frank06 said:


> This looks like a pretty normal phenomenon to me and I fail to see what this kind of re-interpretation has to do with 'ignorance'.


Because _Dios_ is not a plural, and they would have known it. They spoke the language. And because Jewish scholarship has never had trouble distinguishing form from meaning (cf. _Elohim_).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Outsider said:


> Because _Dios_ is not a plural, and they would have known it. They spoke the language.


So what? Things like this happen frequently. The re-interpretation of singulars > plurals and vice versa even happens among several generations of native speakers of the very same language who are supposed to "have known it" because "they spoke the language", whether or not religion is involved.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Outsider

Frank06 said:


> Things like this happen frequently.


So what? I have seen no evidence so far that they happened in this particular case. Have you got any?


----------



## aleCcowaN

Somebody knows for sure the exact pronunciation of the word "dio", is it /'dio/ or /di'o/? One syllable or two syllables?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Outsider said:


> So what? I have seen no evidence so far that they happened in this particular case. Have you got any?


I think we might find a possible answer in this article:
Heinrich Kohring: "Por el Dio bendito - Judenspanisch (el) Dió ein Ausdruck des Monotheismus?" in: _Romania Arabica. Festschrift für_
_Reinhold Kontzi_. Tübingen 1996, p.445-470.
The good news is: the publication can be found via google books.
The *very very* bad news is: we can only view one single page of that particular article. On that page, two other authors are discussed, the conclusion by Kohring must be on the hidden pages.
Well, I am not going to spend €99.00 to find it out ;-). Neither am I going to contact the author.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## avok

Outsider said:


> So what? I have seen no evidence so far that they happened in this particular case. Have you got any?


 
But the link Frank gave is very good, I also quote it :





> *Dio* (_modification of Sp. _dios _from Lat. _deus god) _m _God; _the Spanish word was modified, because the final -s *appeared to the Jews a plural suffix*; moreover Dio was used always with definite article_ *(El Dio)* _to underline the monotheistic principle of Judaism._


 
The writer says that the final -s appeared to the Jews a plural suffix. Jews, of course knew that it was a "singular word". But when it is about religion, especially in the Middle Ages, people might have been concerned about the things that we would not even care about today like changing the structure of a word to underline the monotheistic principle of their religion.
And if there were always "dios" but not "dio" how did Jews keep "dio" a word that's not used (you cant keep something thats not used) ? Then keeping "dio" must be a conscious choice.

If "orbit" is a reliable source then we should believe it, I guess.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think we might find a possible answer in this article:
> Heinrich Kohring: "Por el Dío bendito - Judenspanisch (el) Dió ein Ausdruck des Monotheismus?" in: _Romania Arabica. Festschrift für_
> _Reinhold Kontzi_. Tübingen 1996, p.445-470.
> The good news is: the publication can be found via google books.
> The *very very* bad news is: we can only view one single page of that particular article. On that page, two other authors are discussed, the conclusion by Kohring must be on the hidden pages.
> Well, I am not going to spend €99.00 to find it out ;-). Neither am I going to contact the author.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


A little problem with the Dío and the Dió. I checked out the spelling on the web and it's OK.

The text quotes "Glosas silenses" [circa 975] which contains this isolated "dio":



> Si quis dereliquerit [laiscaret] proprios filios et non eos alat [pasceret gobernaret], uel filii parentes deseruerint in occasione [algodre] cultus [collitura de dio], hoc justum esse [sedere] judicantes, anathema sint.


This text came from an abbey in Burgos Province, part of the land where Castilian (modern Spanish) originated.

Though the -us nominative ending in Latin became -o in Spanish (Brutus --> Bruto) we have one exception: Pilatus ---> Pilatos. Searching the RAE database I found 7 documents containing Pilato from 1000 to 1300, and none containing Pilatos. From 1300 to 1500, they have 16 documents containing Pilato and 11 containing Pilatos (the oldest about 1380-90). From 1500 on, it predominates Pilatos though Pilato remains in use.

In spite of all these linguistic delikatessen, I think that here who don't belong to the "Spanish area" tend to think of Spanish as a unity through history, what never was, is and will be; like Western people speaking of "the Chinese" (they are this or that way in China). It's like me saying "in Belgium they should speak Belgian". Jews lived in different linguistic areas throughout the Peninsula, "ladino" was their own language, not the language they took from their "host" country (could be that way centuries earlier but not it 1000-1492). They needed to be in touch with other Jew communities owing the constant persecutions and even massacres. So Iberia took the Deus and Deum (accusative) from Latin and it became Deus in Western Iberia, Déu in Eastern Iberia, and Dío, Dió and finally Dios in Central Iberia. While all this language evolution occurred -but not before it ended-, the Jews were isolated, persecuted and finally expelled from some multi-language and multi-ethnic kingdoms, that seemed to think they had a need of simplifying their reality. 

Is there any need of a theory that links a suspected plural interpretation of Dios, then becoming a monotheist Dio?


----------



## avok

aleCcowaN said:


> Is there any need of a theory that links a suspected plural interpretation of Dios, then becoming a monotheist Dio?


Brain storming? and also one should ask the guys of "orbit" how come they needed that kind of a theory, they sure did not take the idea from me


----------



## demalaga

QUOTE
Though the -us nominative ending in Latin became -o in Spanish (Brutus --> Bruto) we have one exception: Pilatus ---> Pilatos. Searching the RAE database I found 7 documents containing Pilato from 1000 to 1300, and none containing Pilatos. From 1300 to 1500, they have 16 documents containing Pilato and 11 containing Pilatos (the oldest about 1380-90). From 1500 on, it predominates Pilatos though Pilato remains in USE- END QUOTATION

Also the exception Paulus gives both Pablo and Pablos.See the famous "Historia de la vida de un buscón llamado Don Pablos"by Quevedo. Calling the same person buscón and Don is something comical.Perhaps the form Pablos was used for lower social clases.


----------



## demalaga

Also the names Lucas and Marcos.Both like Pablo, authors of texts frequently  read in the churches.Nowadays the form Pablos is no longer used but Lucas and Marcos are the more used forms.


----------



## aleCcowaN

I found many cases of Deu during medieval times not written in Latin. I even fould many cases of "el Dios" during medieval times that are not "el Dios de los cristianos" neither "el Dios de Ysrael". These days I'm reading "El Conde Lucanor", and I found something interesting in the preliminary chapter of the edition, taken from a work of Don Juan Manuel from about 1325:


> Et de que fueren mançebos fasta que sean en tienpo de auer entendimiento  conplido, que ayan qui los conseje bien et leal mientre, et que faga a *el  Dios* tanta merçed que los quiera, et guiar se por su  consejo.


Besides, everybody should know that Spanish uses third person for formal or polite addressing. In medieval times, having a common person to ask something to a noble one, he had to ask it to the noble's will (merced): "If thy will does me such a favor...". The phrase "vuestra merced" originated nowadays "Usted" about 1600-1700. But addressing or referring to high authorities from a grand distance was an ancient fashion, an there's nothing strange in hoping that "The God" make our wishes real, rather than asking "him" straightly as people do now.

I've read some text in Ladino, and I found them easier than 1200's Spanish. This language does not have stress marks and I couldn't find if they pronounce dío or dió, and possible modern changes. Without this information the issue becomes quite speculative.


----------



## Fray Luis

I would say the Ladino pronunciation must have been Dío, as in Italian, rather than Dio. I just checked the Refranero ideológico español, a compilation of refranes, that is, Spanish proverbs, by Luis Martínez Kleiser. It's the most comprehensive collection ever published of Spanish proverbs, with close to 70,000 from the Middle Ages until now, including many Sephardic ones. Although these don't seem to have accent marks, I have notice some where Dio rhymes with judío (Jew). A considerable percentage of Spanish proverbs, Jewish or not, rhyme. However, it doesn't mean necessarily that they perceived Dios as a plural form. They may have used Dio from Latin Deo as in present-day Italian. Even if they didn't say Dios, they were surrounded by people who said Dios pronounced diós, not dío. Dios would never have been understood as a plural, then or now, but díos could. But who knows. Sabe Dios.


----------



## SkyScout

I did a study of the question of Ladino "DIO" versus "DIOS" years ago.
As someone noted here earlier, the Ladino Jews specifically chose to drop the "S" because they were/are unitarians and not trinitarians (i.e. "one" G-d and not three within one).

ELOI, ELOHIM - does not mean "G-d". It means Lord. The plural is used ("elohim") as an expression of "greatness" -- representing "the All."

Perhaps akin to Queen Victoria use the royal "We" when she spoke.

Thank you.


----------



## Fray Luis

Yes, it's very possible. We Christians believe the Old Testament Elohim is plural because it refers to one God in three persons, but Jews understand it a different way. And for sure, it can be a "royal we" as the one used by kings and popes, very fitting for the Lord. I assume you must be Jewish, SkyScout, from your G-d spelling. It's good to have a Jew's point of view on a matter like this. Shalom, and welcome to the forum!


----------



## ThomasK

Anyone interested in more about the etymology of 'God' could read Gary Eberle's book _Dangerous Words. Talking about God in an Age of Fundamentalism_ (chapter 8). Quite interesting. 

In fact I'd like to suggest that the moderator add 'plural ?' to the title, so that one knows it is not about the origin of the word as such, but about the question whether it is plural or singular originally.


----------



## Outsider

SkyScout said:


> As someone noted here earlier, the Ladino Jews specifically chose to drop the "S" because they were/are unitarians and not trinitarians (i.e. "one" G-d and not three within one).


As Fray Luis mentioned, the Christian (Nicaean) view is one god in three persons, not three gods in one. It would be rather absurd for a religion that prides itself on its monotheism to believe in three different gods.



Fray Luis said:


> We Christians believe the Old Testament Elohim is plural because it refers to one God in three persons, but Jews understand it a different way.


Interesting. Is that interpretation cannonical?


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,*

*The last thing we have in mind is turning this subforum into a theological study group.*

*Anyway, I think there have already been given very acceptable answers to the original question: *


> After reading that in Ladino the word for "God" is *El Dio* instead of *Dios*. I wonder whether *Dios* was originally plural. If not, why the final S?".


 
*What the topic of what "we" (or rather you) Christians believe" concerns, I suggest that you reserve this for the nearest by Sunday school.*



*Groetjes,*

*Frank*


----------



## OBrasilo

The final -s might have been re-instated, in order to distinguish the word from the 3rd person singular perfect form of the verb _dar_ (to give), which is still _dió_ in Modern Spanish (probably in order to avoid saying God's name in vain, just because of that verb form).
To support this theory is, that the exact same occurs in Portuguese as well, where God is _Deus_, and the 3rd person singular perfect form of the verb _dar_ (to give), is _deu_.


----------



## Lusus Naturae

Carolus > Carlos
opus > uebos

Are there predictors for -us > -os?


----------



## Dymn

Accusative nouns ending in _-us _in Latin lost the _-s _in Spanish, except for _huebos_ as far as I know:
_
pectus > pecho
tempus > tiempo
corpus > cuerpo
opus > huebos
_
This -s has been mostly kept though in Catalan and French (_cos, temps / corps, temps_)

Probably it has to do with how important it is to tell apart singular and plural nouns. Maybe that's why it has been kept in Spanish in some proper nouns such as _Dios, Carlos, Marcos_, which are anyway derived from the nominative since the accusative ends in _-um_.


----------

