# Toponyms ending in -s in French



## ThomasK

A friend pointed out to me that so many toponyms in French end in -s. 



> Londres, Anvers, Bruxelles,  Paris, etc.
> 
> Lessines, Frasnes,Herquegies, Hacquegnies, Ellignies, Ellezelles - in Belgium



Does anyone have an explanation? Plural or genitive ???


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> Does anyone have an explanation?


I have no explanation but it should be noted that with the exception of Paris all your examples pertain to non-native names where there is no final -s in the original name.



ThomasK said:


> Plural or genitive ???


I think you mean nominative. In historical French, when it still had some case endings left, -s marked the nominative and not the genitive.


----------



## ThomasK

You're quite right as for London and Brussels. That is what I pointed out to her.

But the -ies names are native, aren't they? 

 And as for genitive: she had been thinking of English, I think. But you do mean nominative plural, I suppose...


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> You're quite right as for London and Brussels.


and as for Anvers (Antwerpen), Lessines (Lissene), Frasnes (Fraine), Ellezelles (Elziele).
Ellignies (Égnies) ends in_ -s_ also in the original.
For Herquegies and Hacquegnies I couldn't find the native forms.


----------



## ThomasK

I am surprised. Please tell me: what is the original word in those village names? You're certainly right about _Ellezele_, but _Lessen _might be a plural, and is that the original? All those villages/ towns are in Wallonia... (Thanks in advance)

But then what could be the reason?


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> I am surprised. Please tell me: what is the original word in those village names? You're certainly right about _Ellezele_, but _Lessen _might be a plural, and is that the original? All those villages/ towns are in Wallonia... (Thanks in advance)
> 
> But then what could be the reason?


I have updated the above post. Ellignies actually ends in -s also in the original. My earlier statment was therefore going to far.


----------



## ThomasK

Good Lord, I am impressed - and surprised. Those seem to be Dutch or Germanic names indeed...


----------



## berndf

Remember that the native language of Wallonie  is Piccard  and not French. I have traced the Wallon names only back to that language not to a possible Germanic root.


----------



## ThomasK

Aaarrrrhhh, Picard... I see, I must admit that I am not familiar with Picard at all.


----------



## DearPrudence

Add Marseille, Lyon... Oops, no. In English, they seem indeed to add an 's' that is not there in French.
I don't think it would help to add all the towns ending in 's', right? (like Angers, Calais, Vimoutiers, Flers, Rânes, Courseulles-sur-Mer, Villers-Bocage, Coutances (tribute to my beloved Lower-Normandy ), Cannes, Martigues, Cagnes, Fos-sur-Mer, Luynes, Istres, Miramas, Eyguières, Sénas, Cassis, Fréjus, Aups, Barjols, Rians,Jouques, Peruis, Grambois, Hyères (that's just the few town I see with a map around Marseilles))...
In any case, there should be no Picard in them, if that helps


----------



## fdb

Lots of toponyms in all parts of France derive from the Latin names of the Gaulish tribes that once inhabited them; they are thus etymologically plural. Some examples:

Ambiani Amiens

Andecavi Angers

Atrebates Arras

Bellovaci Beauvais

Bituriges Bourges

Cadurci Cahors

Carnutes Chartres

Need I go on ?


----------



## ThomasK

No, except if there were not that many... ;-) Are there that many? Just look at the names of small villages in Wallonia... 

Come to think of it: our Flemish village names are often based on persons + _(g/h)em _[home]. Could there be a parallel? Maybe not a tribe but a family?


----------



## CapnPrep

ThomasK said:


> But you do mean nominative plural, I suppose...


I think the meant the nominative singular, but these placenames probably derive from the accusative plural, which was also marked by _-s_ (and eventually became the all-purpose plural).


----------



## ThomasK

I do not understand why a name would be in the accusative plural: the direct-object form? But then does that imply th


----------



## CapnPrep

ThomasK said:


> I do not understand why a name would be in the accusative plural: the direct-object form?


It was more precisely the oblique form. The nominative was only used for subjects (and vocatives), and the oblique form was used everywhere else: Do you know Paris? I am going to Paris, my sister lives in Paris, etc. So for placenames (and most nouns in general), this was the more frequent form and eventually the only form when the two-case system collapsed. fdb explained why the morphologically plural form was used, but I suspect it was treated as grammatically singular very early on.

Actually, in regard to _Paris_: that _s_ is simply part of the root, because the tribe was the _Parisii_ (acc. _Parisios_). Maybe there is also a plural _-s_ there, but you can't see it.


----------



## ThomasK

I thought it mght have implied that most names refer to inhabitants (and that the '-g/hem'/ 'ham'/ place indicator was dropped).  That basis would indeed be/ have been typical of a lot of names I know in Western Europe, I think (name + place, as in my village's name: 'Tiegem' = 'Tieboud's home (...)'...

So This would again refer to people/ tribe's names, I believe.  But the strange thing is that it got an -s in French, whereas there often was none in Picard, as Berndf pointed out...


----------



## CapnPrep

ThomasK said:


> So This would again refer to people/ tribe's names, I believe.  But the strange thing is that it got an -s in French, whereas there often was none in Picard, as Berndf pointed out...


You would have to try to find out if they really never had an _-s_ or if they just dropped the _-s_ at some point since it no longer had any grammatical relevance and was no longer pronounced. And since the _-s_ has no function and is not pronounced in French, either, it's not hard to imagine it being added arbitrarily as a kind of graphic suffix for placenames (this probably explains how we ended up with Lyons and Marseilles in English).


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> And since the _-s_ has no function and is not pronounced in French, either, it's not hard to imagine it being added arbitrarily as a kind of graphic suffix for placenames ...


It obviously happened in exonyms like _Londres_ and _Anvers_. So I wouldn't rule that out either.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

DearPrudence said:


> Add Marseille, Lyon... Oops, no. In English, they seem indeed to add an 's' that is not there in French.



This is standard, or was once upon a time, in BrE but not in AmE. I have no idea why English speakers would ever have written Lyon*s*, to be honest.


----------

