the Latin Suffix -logia

By NewLinguist, in 'General Latin Chat (English)', Jun 17, 2010.

  1. NewLinguist New Member

    Hi Bitmap, I did read some sources that agreed with you, although others aren't as restrictive: eg

    I haven't yet found a source that can accurately confirm with any real evidence whether cattus or feles was the Latin word used to refer to the entire cat family, or if they were synonyms, and one source even suggested that cattus replaced feles. I wonder if they had the term magnus cattus?
  2. JaimeB Civis Illustris

    • Civis Illustris
    San Francisco, CA
    You keep saying there is no gender in English, and then you contradict yourself by talking about the use of the common gender or the neuter gender in English. How can a person have a conversation with you when you insist on changing the meanings of words?

    Before you do any more discussion of language, you ought to go back to your Logic texts and look up the meaning of "equivocation."
  3. Iynx Consularis

    • Consularis
    This thread seems to have wandered rather far from its roots. I think it may be useful (and perhaps calming) to add a couple of practical, nit-picking details:

    1. Certain Greek loanwords ending in –ia, that were classically accented on the antepenult, the i in the penult being short, came later, in imitation of Greek usage, to be stressed on the penult. Janson (p. 218) specifically cites astronomia (“astronomy”), philosophia (“philosophy”), and theologia (“theology”) , and I suppose that the same ought to apply to any Latin word for an “-ology” ending in –logia. This is one of the few places in which I prefer the classical usage.

    2. The conventional way to designate a practitioner of one of these arts is to add to the root -icus, -i. So a theologian is a theologicus. Once upon a time such words were masculine; today I suppose we must either declare them to be common, or (my own preference) to coin feminine equivalents (as theologica, -ae).

    3. Words ending in -ista or -ita, like exorcista or conchita (respecively "exorcist" and "gatherer of shellfish") should in my opinion likewise today be taken as common, that is, masculine or feminine in accordance with the gender of the person denoted-- notwithstanding the general principle (which I acknowledge) that Latin gender, and more generally Indo-European gender, formally denotes noun-class merely, and is not necessarily linked to biological gender.

    4. I agree that the Vatican's choice of expressions to denote res recentes are often infelicitious in the extreme. But in the particular case of "motorcycle" -- in Italian a mororetta is a motorcycle, is it not?-- the LRL's locution, while bad, is not so awful as has been represented: birotula automataria (f).

    Speaking more generally, it seems to me that while there is some truth everywhere-- was it not the elder Pliny who said there was no book so bad it had not something worth extracting?-- the general tone of this thread is not something that any of us can be proud of.

    In particular the "giggle" associated with the paraphrase of John xviii: 11 is not only puerile (as it seems to me) but also (if I may speak frankly) insensitive; this is still, to many people, a sacred text.

    Whether or not it be so to us, it is my opinion that we should now take something from it; I will avoid any further giggles by paraphrasing not the last but the first of the gospels: Convertamus gladios nostros in locos suos.
  4. NewLinguist New Member

    Jaime, initially the main issue seemed to be the application of gender directly onto inanimate objects, and in this regard application of sexual genders directly onto inanimate objects was removed or disappeared starting in middle English and in the process they all moved into the neuter gender as a default. Gender didn't disappear, it was reformed. I never said there was no gender in modern English. In modern English nouns involving living things can be masculine, feminine, common, or epicene, although they adhere to natural gender as a default. As the noun genders are implicit rather than explicit it can give the illusion of disappearing gender.
  5. JaimeB Civis Illustris

    • Civis Illustris
    San Francisco, CA
    I'm done with this conversation. Good luck!
  6. NewLinguist New Member

    Alright Jaime, gender is a very tricky area, have a good one!
  7. JaimeB Civis Illustris

    • Civis Illustris
    San Francisco, CA
    Contra principia negantem non est disputandum

Share This Page


Our Latin forum is a community for discussion of all topics relating to Latin language, ancient and medieval world.

Latin Boards on this Forum:

English to Latin, Latin to English translation, general Latin language, Latin grammar, Latine loquere, ancient and medieval world links.