Why did English lawyers pick "damages"? Why not recompense, reparation, requital, or even Latinate terms like "expiation" or "solatium"? These are clearer because you won't mix these up with "damage". "damages" is confusing" because it's already of the plural of "damage". I trust it's glaring why "damages" is confusing and unintuitive.

It's unintuitive because many English judges write claiming/seeking/recovering damages, which sounds like you're claiming/seeking/recovering harms and injuries! I know that legal damages are related to damage, but they're not the same. It feels more intuitive to say "claiming/seeking/recovering + recompense, reparation, requital".

The Grammarphobia Blog: On 'damage' and 'damages'

Centuries ago, however, both “damage” and “damages” were used to mean a loss as well as compensation for such a loss. Here’s an example in the Oxford English Dictionary for the plural used in the sense of loss or injury: “Repairing the damages which the kingdom had sustained by war” (The History of England, 1771, by Oliver Goldsmith).

damage (n.) | Origin and meaning of damage by Online Etymology Dictionary

c. 1300, "harm, injury; hurt or loss to person, character, or estate," from Old French damage, domage  "loss caused by injury" (12c., Modern French dommage), from dam "damage," from Latin damnum "loss, hurt, damage" (see damn). In law (as damages) "the value in money of what was lost or withheld, that which is given to repair a cost," from c. 1400. Colloquial sense of "cost, expense" is by 1755.

OED

4. Law. (Now always in plural) The value, estimated in money, of something lost or withheld; the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained.

Why did English lawyers pick "damages"? Why not recompense, reparation, requital, or even Latinate terms like "expiation" or "solatium"? These are clearer because you won't mix these up with "damage." "Damages" is confusing because it's already the plural of "damage." I trust it's glaring why "damages" is confusing and unintuitive.

It's unintuitive because many English judges write claiming/seeking/recovering damages, which sounds like you're claiming/seeking/recovering harms and injuries! I know that legal damages are related to damage, but they're not the same. It feels more intuitive to say "claiming/seeking/recovering + recompense, reparation, requital."

The Grammarphobia Blog: On 'damage' and 'damages'

Centuries ago, however, both “damage” and “damages” were used to mean a loss as well as compensation for such a loss. Here’s an example in the Oxford English Dictionary for the plural used in the sense of loss or injury: “Repairing the damages which the kingdom had sustained by war” (The History of England, 1771, by Oliver Goldsmith).

damage (n.) | Origin and meaning of damage by Online Etymology Dictionary

c. 1300, "harm, injury; hurt or loss to person, character, or estate," from Old French damage, domage  "loss caused by injury" (12c., Modern French dommage), from dam "damage," from Latin damnum "loss, hurt, damage" (see damn). In law (as damages) "the value in money of what was lost or withheld, that which is given to repair a cost," from c. 1400. Colloquial sense of "cost, expense" is by 1755.

OED

4. Law. (Now always in plural) The value, estimated in money, of something lost or withheld; the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained.

I'm no lawyer, but I trust it's glaring why "damages" is confusing and unintuitive. It's confusing because "damages" is already of the plural of "damage". It's unintuitive because damages are related to, but aren't the same as, damage.

Why did lawyers pick "damages"? Why not "recompense", "reparation, "requital" (even Latinate terms like "expiation" or "solatium") – these are more accurate and intuitive than "damages"?

The Grammarphobia Blog: On 'damage' and 'damages'

Centuries ago, however, both “damage” and “damages” were used to mean a loss as well as compensation for such a loss. Here’s an example in the Oxford English Dictionary for the plural used in the sense of loss or injury: “Repairing the damages which the kingdom had sustained by war” (The History of England, 1771, by Oliver Goldsmith).

damage (n.) | Origin and meaning of damage by Online Etymology Dictionary

c. 1300, "harm, injury; hurt or loss to person, character, or estate," from Old French damage, domage  "loss caused by injury" (12c., Modern French dommage), from dam "damage," from Latin damnum "loss, hurt, damage" (see damn). In law (as damages) "the value in money of what was lost or withheld, that which is given to repair a cost," from c. 1400. Colloquial sense of "cost, expense" is by 1755.

OED

4. Law. (Now always in plural) The value, estimated in money, of something lost or withheld; the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained.

Why did English lawyers pick "damages"? Why not recompense, reparation, requital, or even Latinate terms like "expiation" or "solatium"? These are clearer because you won't mix these up with "damage". "damages" is confusing" because it's already of the plural of "damage". I trust it's glaring why "damages" is confusing and unintuitive. 

It's unintuitive because many English judges write claiming/seeking/recovering damages, which sounds like you're claiming/seeking/recovering harms and injuries! I know that legal damages are related to damage, but they're not the same. It feels more intuitive to say "claiming/seeking/recovering + recompense, reparation, requital".

The Grammarphobia Blog: On 'damage' and 'damages'

Centuries ago, however, both “damage” and “damages” were used to mean a loss as well as compensation for such a loss. Here’s an example in the Oxford English Dictionary for the plural used in the sense of loss or injury: “Repairing the damages which the kingdom had sustained by war” (The History of England, 1771, by Oliver Goldsmith).

damage (n.) | Origin and meaning of damage by Online Etymology Dictionary

c. 1300, "harm, injury; hurt or loss to person, character, or estate," from Old French damage, domage  "loss caused by injury" (12c., Modern French dommage), from dam "damage," from Latin damnum "loss, hurt, damage" (see damn). In law (as damages) "the value in money of what was lost or withheld, that which is given to repair a cost," from c. 1400. Colloquial sense of "cost, expense" is by 1755.

OED

4. Law. (Now always in plural) The value, estimated in money, of something lost or withheld; the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained.