pageok
pageok
pageok
Latin Forms:

Most English words, even those adapted from Latin, form derivatives or related words through pretty standard English rules. Test (noun) corresponds to test (verb); screen (noun) corresponds to screen (verb); president (noun) corresponds to presidential (adjective); determine (verb) corresponds to determination (noun).

But rule (noun) corresponds to regulate (verb). (Regulation also corresponds to regulate, but rule [noun] doesn't generally correspond to rule [verb].)

Crown (verb) corresponds to coronation (noun). (Though "crowning" [noun] is attested in the OED, it's extremely unusual; "coronation" is what is normally used.)

Dean (noun) corresponds to decanal (adjective), not to "deanic" or "deanal."

English (adjective) corresponds to Anglicize (verb), not to "Englishify."

See (verb) corresponds to visible (adjective), not to "seeable"; likewise for hear and feel. [UPDATE: As several commenters pointed out, this violates my rule 2 below; I added that rule -- to limit the range of possible answers -- after composing this set of examples, but forgot to come back to delete them. Whoops.]

What other correspondences like this can you find? The criteria are that (1) an Anglicized word must correspond to a Latinate form — (2) a form that shares the same Latin root as the Anglicized original (so "cat" / "feline" won't count) — and (3) must not correspond to a common alternative form created using relatively standard rules of English word adaptation.

uh clem (mail):
Crown (verb) corresponds to crown (noun).
Coronate (verb) corresponds to coronation(noun).

Am I missing something, or are we just looking for synonmys and comparing the verb form of one with the noun form of the other?

Not much of a Latin scholar, alas.
5.17.2007 2:03pm
dearieme:
May I muddy the waters? Does it matter whether the word came direct from Latin (e.g. through Church or University) or came via Norman French?
5.17.2007 2:14pm
Maniakes (mail):
Treaties and wars between two countries seem to often by named by using the Latin form of the first country's name.

Franco-Prussian War
Anglo-French Entente
Anglo-Irish Treaty
Sino-Japanese War
Sino-Indian War
Sino-British Joint Declaration

This pattern does not seem to hold for events to which the US is a party, unless the other party is England:
Spanish-American War
Mexican-American War
5.17.2007 2:16pm
Zathras (mail):
Close to dean, but...
deacon(n.)-->diaconal(adj.)
5.17.2007 2:19pm
Christopher M (mail):
time (n.) -> temporal (adj.)
5.17.2007 2:31pm
Christopher M (mail):
Aren't you breaking your own rule #2 with the "see/hear/feel" examples? "See" and "visible" don't "share[] the same Latin root," nor do "hear" and "audible," nor do "feel" and "sensible" (or "tactile" or whatever you're thinking of).
5.17.2007 2:35pm
Latinist:
uh clem,
That's not quite right: crown (noun) is not in fact a synonym for coronation. And I don't think "coronate" is a real verb. So if you want a noun referring to the action of crowning someone (not the object they are crowned with), the only word is coronation.

I'm a little embarrassed that I can't think of many other examples. The best I can come up with is bishop --> episcopal, and I don't know how many people use "episcopal" in that sense. (Also, I'm not certain that it comes to English through Latin, rather than directly from Greek.
5.17.2007 2:37pm
Latinist:
Ah!

marriage --> marital

enemy --> inimical

host --> hospitable

Now I feel much better.
5.17.2007 2:40pm
Christopher M (mail):
pope -> papal (the vowel change saves it from violating Rule # 3)
5.17.2007 2:41pm
Another Steve (mail):
@uh clem Are you sure "to coronate" is a word at all? It seems like back-formation to me. One can find uses of it here and there, but generally from people who weren't aware that "to crown" is the preferred form.
5.17.2007 2:42pm
Latinist:
I notice also that EV's last few examples don't follow his own rule 2: "see" is not from the same Latin root as "visible," and the same goes for "hear" and "feel."

Does it count if the Anglicized original comes not from a Latin root, but from the same Indo-European root as the Latin word? If so, ear --> aural, nose --> nasal and mind --> mental would work.
5.17.2007 2:46pm
Latinist:
right (adjective) --> rectitude (though maybe "rightness" is common enough to make this violate rule 3)
5.17.2007 2:51pm
Latinist:
space --> spatial

touch --> tactile

(Both of these inspired by the posts of Christopher M, who also, I see, beat me to the point about EV violating his own rule)
5.17.2007 2:55pm
Christopher M (mail):
city -> civic
eagle -> aquiline
governor -> gubernatorial
island -> insular (the etymology is actually a little tricky on this one, but it arguably falls within the rules)
lion -> leonine
touch -> tactile
wine -> vinic (I think)
5.17.2007 2:55pm
Felix Sulla (mail):
How about palace - > palatial
5.17.2007 3:06pm
Connie (mail):
uncle==>avuncular
5.17.2007 3:20pm
uh clem (mail):
Coronate may be a back formation, but it's certainly a word.

Agree that coronation(noun) and crown(noun) are not synonmys, but crown(verb) and coronate(verb) are, assuming you accept "coronate" as a verb.
5.17.2007 3:22pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Oh, rats. Christopher M beat me to lion/leonine and eagle/aquiline.

Guessing here as I have no Latin, but maybe spleen/splenetic? River/riparian?

Then there are those oddball adjectival forms of British cities: Liverpool/Liverpudlian, Glasgow/Glaswegian. I remember wondering once whether they'd taken a side detour through Latin in the Roman period.
5.17.2007 3:23pm
Mitch Schapira (mail) (www):
"Crowning" is not a noun. It is a gerund. It also has a special meaning in the labor and delivery room.
5.17.2007 3:27pm
liberty (mail) (www):
Does "bore" (noun) correspond to "bore" (verb) .. . ouch, how about "bite", yes "bite" corresponds
5.17.2007 3:28pm
JC:
Another British city adjectival form: Cambridge/Cantabrigian
5.17.2007 3:34pm
Connie (mail):
I'm sure there's a bunch in the same category as lion/leonine. Here's a chart of animal adjectives in Wikipedia. Knock yourself out looking up which ones have a noun and adjectival form both from Latin. Unfortunately, I have an actual job to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Adjectives

Mitch--I don't think anyone here used "crowning" as a noun.
5.17.2007 3:40pm
Connie (mail):
Ok, I can't stop. How about

female==>feminine
male==>masculine
5.17.2007 3:56pm
A.C.:
Are you sure that "rule" (n) and "rule" (v) don't go together? "Rule" and "regulate" are a modern pair, but there's a long tradition of governments that make all the rules and then rule with an iron fist. We don't think in those terms in a republic, but the correspondence still works as far as the language is concerned. The fact that we have "regulate" for a different shade of meaning is interesting, because it shows that one noun can match up with several verbs.

Similarly, we have "act" (n) and "act" (v), but we also have "activate" (not so far off the normal English rules) and "actuate" (downright bizarre).
5.17.2007 4:07pm
Connie (mail):
Surely the obvious one for this blog is law (n.) and legal (adj.).
5.17.2007 4:19pm
Rich B. (mail):
How about:

Father --> Paternal

People --> Populate

Genus --> Generate
5.17.2007 4:24pm
ys:
Father --> Paternal

Why stop there?

Mother --> Maternal
Uncle ---> Avuncular (yes, it's true)
5.17.2007 4:35pm
ys:
And of course:

Brother -> Fraternal
Sister -> Sororial
5.17.2007 4:40pm
Mikeyes (mail):
I know that this is Greek, but in the same vein of intellectual inquiry as most of the above:

If the plural of scolex (the head of a tapeworm) is scolices, what is the plural of Rolex?
5.17.2007 4:44pm
Connie (mail):
Mother, father, brother, and sister don't clearly come from Latin, although the adjectival forms listed above do, thus violating one of EV's rules in the original post.
5.17.2007 4:47pm
TheGoodReverend (mail) (www):
Mitch, a gerund is a type of noun.
5.17.2007 4:52pm
A.C.:
ys --

No fair hauling Indo-European into it!

But if we can do that, how about:

One - unitary
Two - duo, duality
Three - triangle, triumvirate

And so on until long after I'm planning to go home tonight.
5.17.2007 4:54pm
not Connie, because she really has gotten back to work (mail):
number (n) > enumerate
motion (n) > move
money (n) > mint (v)
sacred (adj.) > sanctify
tomb (n) > entomb (v)
judge (n) > judiciary (adj.)
peace (n) > pacify (v)
root (n) > radical (adj.)
corpus (n) > corporeal (adj.)
voice > vocal

minor spelling changes, not sure if these count:
crucify > crucifixion
revert (v) > reversion (n)
vacant > vacate
deride > derision
maintain > maintenance
publish > publication and public
5.17.2007 5:45pm
James Ellis (mail):
ostrich===>struthious

I've been wanting to use that word for years.
5.17.2007 6:00pm
TomH (mail):
I decide => I'm the decider (a word used often in medieval French and adopted by our own President Bush to bring an other wise disused, old French verb into the common parlance of our American English)
5.17.2007 6:08pm
aces:
Halifax (Nova Scotia)---> Haligonian
5.17.2007 6:32pm
ReaderY:
People "coronate" the homecoming Queen? Really? They never crown her? Must have gone to a really wierd high school.
5.17.2007 8:10pm
ReaderY:
Correction: Whhether or not a "crowning" is rare, the verb "crown" corresponds a noun that's very common indeed. It's the thing that sits on the monarech's head.
5.17.2007 8:13pm
ReaderY:
There are often distinct sets of Anglo-Saxon Anglo-Norman, Latin, and Greek words for the same thing, thus
king —-> kingly
roy —-> royal
rex/regina —> regal
monarch/monarchical

Sometimes one element of a set drops out of common usage while others remain. Roy is very rarely used, yet royal remains common
5.17.2007 8:19pm
Christopher M (mail):
Several of the examples in the later comments don't actually follow the rules. For example, not-Connie's "root (n) > radical (adj.)" "Radical" comes from Latin radix, to be sure, but "root" does not come from that "same Latin root," as Rule #2 requires. It doesn't come from a Latin root at all, but from Old Norse. (See http://m-w.com/dictionary/root.) The relevant Norse word is related to Latin radix, but it doesn't come from it: they're cousins, so to speak.
5.17.2007 8:34pm
Karl Narveson (mail):
What Eugene noticed, with his examples rule/regular and crown/coronation, was the pattern linguists call a doublet. A doublet is a pair of words ((or word components) with the same source, but different transmission histories, leading to a difference in form. Double is itself a doublet with the "dupl" in duplicate or duplicity.

It doesn't require Latin to get a doublet - examples can be entirely English, like slick/sleek or break/breach. But Latin is a great source of doublets because so many Latin words were preserved in written texts while also being handed down in speech from parents to children over many centuries. To get more examples like Eugene's, just start with a word from Norman French, look up its Latin origin, and check for direct borrowings from the Latin.

noun/nominal
judge/judicial
tense/temporal (grammatical terms)
entire/integral (both are adjectives, but it's a valid doublet)
empire/imperial
avenge/vindicate (both are verbs)
powder/pulverize
beef/bovine
people/popular
5.17.2007 8:40pm
Connie (mail):
deity divine
elucidate lucid
ray radiate
ordinal order
scholar school
utensil use
citizen civic

And a category of questionable ones:
muscle muscular
particle particular
scruple scrupulous
joke jocular
5.18.2007 12:31pm
Connie (mail):
Karl--I thought "doublets" were when we use two words to mean the same thing (often found in law), such as cease &desist, null &void, aid &abet. English evolved like this because we took one word from French and one from Latin: different words that nonetheless had essentially the same meaning.
5.18.2007 12:46pm
James Ellis (mail):
devil==>diabolical?
5.18.2007 2:41pm
Connie (mail):
Star (n)/stellar (adj.)
5.18.2007 9:10pm
Jeremy Pierce (mail) (www):
I think it must be another instance of lawyer-isolation (as with conclusory/conclusive) behind the sense that 'rule' as a verb is very rare. Even in law, a judge will rule that such and such is the case. We don't speak of legislators ruling, but we do speak of kings ruling. But I don't think we usually even speak of legislators regulating, not in ordinary English. Ordinary English speakings speak of legislators passing laws.

But that's another instance of the original phenomenon. Congress doesn't law. It legislates.
5.19.2007 8:23am