LATIN AND FRENCH WORDS.
_Latin Roots._
English words which indicate mental actions, feelings, or general
abstractions, come to us from a Latin or a French source. These,
though not the most numerous, comprise a very considerable portion
of the English language. It must be understood that French is, in
the main, composed of Latin words; and we may conveniently divide
this portion of the English language into three classes:--1. Words
derived directly from Latin; 2. Words derived indirectly from
Latin, through a French medium; and, 3. Middle-age Latin words,
i.e. those formed from a corrupt Latin by the monks of the middle
ages. These last appear in French in a modified form, and come into
English still further altered in their spelling and pronunciation.
I. In most cases English words of the first class are compounds
or derivatives. We have not adopted the roots themselves, but use
them only in composition, with some particle or preposition. For
example: the Latin root ‘clude’ is never found in English as an
independent word, though we have ‘exclude,’ ‘include,’ ‘preclude,’
&c. It is also to be observed that a Latin verbal root, in many
cases, produces two forms in English; one containing the root
of the verb itself, and the other its participial form. Thus,
the above example will give us ‘exclude,’ from the Latin verb
‘excludĕre,’ and also ‘exclu_s_ion,’ ‘exclu_s_ive,’ from its
participle ‘exclusus.’ If we take any one of these roots, say
‘clud’ and ‘clus’ (shut), we may find it in modern English in a
great variety of forms. From the participial root (clus) come
‘clause’ (a part of a sentence _shut_ in); ‘cloister’ (a place
_shut_ in); ‘close’ (to _shut_ to); ‘closet’ (a small place _shut_
up); ‘recluse,’ one _shut_ out from the world, &c., as well as the
verbs exclude, include, preclude, with their derivatives exclusion,
inclusion, preclusion; the adjectives ‘exclusive,’ ‘inclusive,’
‘preclusive,’ and the adverbs ‘exclusively,’ ‘inclusively,’ &c.
These words are not often found in the vocabulary of the uneducated
classes; they belong rather to the language of books, or to the set
forms of eloquence, than to that of daily intercourse. We should
say, in common parlance, that a boy was _shut out_ of the room by
his companions; but we should hardly say that he was _excluded_.
In a secondary sense, however, such a word would be more properly
adopted. We should say correctly, ‘that such considerations were
_excluded_ from this view of the subject,’ where we could not very
well use ‘shut out.’ Again, we could not properly say that any
one was ‘included’ in a dungeon; meaning that he was ‘shut in.’
Words drawn from these Latin roots have a very wide application in
English, but they are confined chiefly to a mental, and are seldom
used in a physical, sense. Saxon forms the basis of our language,
and is used in practical and domestic matters; while our spiritual
conceptions are expressed by French or Latin words.
Another well-known Latin root is ‘cide’ (from cædĕre, to slay);
which corresponds in meaning with the more familiar Saxon word
‘kill.’ We have, not ‘cide,’ but ‘fratricide,’ ‘matricide,’
‘regicide,’ ‘suicide,’ ‘parricide,’ ‘homicide,’ and ‘infanticide.’
To these may be added, ‘concise,’ ‘precise,’ ‘decision,’
‘incision,’ &c. All the latter are derived from the participle of
the same Latin verb--‘cæsus.’
Again: the root ‘sume’ (sumpt), from the Latin ‘sumĕre,’ to take,
gives us ‘assume,’ ‘consume,’ ‘presume,’ with their participial
derivatives, ‘assumption,’ ‘consumption,’ ‘presumption,’
‘sumptuous,’ ‘presumptuous,’ &c.
The Latin root ‘cede’ (cess) appears in English in two forms
of spelling; one, ‘cede,’ as ‘accede,’ ‘concede,’ ‘recede’; and
the other, ‘ceed,’ as in ‘exceed,’ ‘proceed,’ ‘succeed.’ These
also have their participial derivatives, as found in ‘excess,’
‘success,’ ‘process,’ ‘accession,’ ‘succession,’ ‘procession.’ It
will be seen that in all these cases the rule holds good. _Cry_
is a more household, domestic word, but ‘acclaim,’ ‘declaim,’
‘proclaim’ are used on more important occasions.
The principle of derivation by the change of an internal
vowel-sound prevailed in ancient Latin as well as in Saxon.
Thus, from the Latin verb ‘f_a_cĕre’ (to make or do) was formed
‘eff_i_cere’ (to effect or bring about), the _a_ in the root being
changed into an _i_ in the derivative; and we have English words
from both these sources:--fact, faculty, facility, &c., from
‘facĕre’; and defect, effect, deficient, efficient, &c., from the
other form.
Some of these Latin roots are extremely prolific. For example, the
Latin verb ‘_ten_ere,’ to hold, produces a very large number of
English words. In certain verbs it appears in the form ‘_tain_,’
as in to abs_tain_, apper_tain_, at_tain_, con_tain_, de_tain_,
main_tain_, ob_tain_, per_tain_, re_tain_, and sus_tain_. To
these may be added the derivatives, con_tin_ent, per_tin_ent,
and imper_tin_ent; besides which, we have from the same source,
‘_ten_ant,’ ‘_ten_able,’ ‘_ten_ure,’ ‘main_ten_ance,’ and
‘sus_ten_ance,’ &c.
Again: the root ‘duce’ (from ‘ducĕre,’ to lead) gives rise to
many English derivatives. First we have (through French) the word
‘_Duke_,’ which originally meant the leader of an army. Then come
the verbs to ad_duce_, con_duce_, de_duce_, in_duce_, pro_duce_,
re_duce_, se_duce_, tra_duce_, in all which the idea of leading is
involved. To the same origin may be traced _duct_ile, aque_duct_,
via_duct_, con_duct_, and pro_duct_, besides de_duct_ion,
re_duct_ion, ab_duct_ion, pro_duct_ion, &c.--nineteen or twenty
words from one root!
II. A rule has been laid down to enable us to determine whether an
English word is derived directly from Latin, or filtered from Latin
through French:--‘If the word comes directly from Latin, the only
change it will undergo will be in the ending. Thus “actio” in Latin
will be “actio_n_” in English; “innocentia” will make “innocence;”
“tormentum,” “torment,” &c. But if the word comes through French,
it will be more altered in its passage; it will be disturbed, not
only in its ending, but also internally. Thus “populus” in Latin is
“peuple” in French, and “people” in English. The Latin “thesaurus”
gives the French “trésor,” and the English “treasure.”’ This may be
accepted as a general rule, but it is often impossible to determine
by the outward form of a word whether we derive it directly from
its primitive Latin source, or take it at second hand from the
French. In most cases of doubt the probability is in favour of
the French, for there are still many English words which were at
first spelled, and probably pronounced, as in French, and whose
orthography, and perhaps pronunciation, was afterwards reformed and
brought back nearer to the Latin type. ‘Doubt’ and ‘debt’ are still
pronounced with the _b_ silent; but when first brought into English
they were both written and pronounced as in French--‘doute’ and
‘dette.’ Afterwards, when it became known that they were originally
derived from the Latin verbs ‘dubitare’ and ‘debere,’ the _b_ was
restored in the spelling, though the French pronunciation was
retained; and the same took place with many other Romance words.
There are certain classes of English words from whose outward
form we may conclude that they are of Latin (or French) origin.
First, when an English noun ends in ‘_tion_’ preceded by a
vowel, we may be pretty sure that it is either directly from
Latin, or from Latin through French. Such words as ‘formation,’
‘completion,’ ‘transition,’ ‘commotion,’ and ‘ablution,’ are
derived either directly or indirectly from Latin. We never meet
with this ending in words of purely Saxon origin. The termination
of these was in Latin ‘tio;’ in French they appear in ‘tion;’
and in English the same ending (tion) is adopted. This Latin
ending, ‘tio,’ is, however, sometimes found in French in the form
_son_, which has thus been introduced into certain English words
of this class. The Latin ‘ratio’ gave the French ‘raison’ and the
English ‘reason.’ Again, ‘traditio’ in Latin became ‘trahison’
in French and ‘treason’ in English. But in many cases the French
ending has not passed into English; for the words ‘declinaison,’
‘conjugaison,’ ‘oraison,’ &c., appear in English as ‘declen_sion_,’
‘conjuga_tion_,’ and ora_tion_, i.e. in their Latin rather than
their French forms.
Another large class of originally Latin words appear in English
with the ending ‘_ty_.’ These are all abstract nouns, which in
Latin end in ‘_tas_.’ This final _tas_ is expressed in French by
_té_, and in English by _ty_. Thus the Latin ‘socie_tas_’ becomes
in French ‘socié_té_’ and in English ‘socie_ty_.’ In the same way,
from the Latin ‘bonitas’ come the French ‘bon_té_’ and the English
‘boun_ty_,’ &c.
In many of these cases we find two forms of the same word, each
with its own meaning. One of these tends to the French, and the
other to the Latin, in spelling; and it may be observed that the
French has been more disturbed by contraction, abbreviation, or
inversion than the Latin. For example, the two words ‘secure’ and
‘sure’ are both originally from the Latin ‘securus;’ but the
former is directly from Latin, whereas the latter is from the
French contracted form--‘sûr.’
Another pair of these double forms may be found in ‘hospital’
and ‘hôtel.’ The Latin ‘hospes’ signified either a ‘host’ or a
guest, i.e. the entertainer or the entertained. From ‘hospitalis’
came the contracted French form ‘hôtel,’ in the sense of a house
where guests or travellers are entertained, as distinguished from
‘hôpital,’ where invalids are taken care of. From the French both
these words came into English, each retaining its original meaning.
This principle of a divided meaning is also seen in ‘persecute’
and ‘pursue,’ the latter of which was known in English before we
became acquainted with the former. ‘Pursue’ is from the French
‘poursuivre,’ and is used in the general sense of following after
eagerly. ‘Persecute,’ from the Latin ‘persecutus,’ the participle
of ‘persĕqui,’ is distinguished from ‘pursue’ by the meaning of ‘to
follow after with an intent to injure.’
Two other words of this class are ‘superficies’ and ‘surface.’
The former is pure Latin; and is compounded of ‘super,’ ‘upon,’
and ‘facies,’ a face. But this word is only used in a scientific
or mathematical sense; whereas ‘surface’ has a more general
signification, and means whatever we can see of the outside of any
material substance.
We find a similar difference of meaning, as well as form, between
‘potion’ and ‘poison.’ Both these came originally from the Latin
‘potare,’ to drink. The former is the direct Latin, the latter
the French form, and both are now English. But the second denotes
a species of the first; for ‘poison,’ as is well known, is that
species of ‘potion’ which destroys life.
This power of dividing a word into two meanings is not peculiar to
English; for many instances of it may be found in German, French,
and Italian. But it is of great advantage. It has the effect of
providing a large number of terms to express shades of thought by
slight differences of meaning, and it thus materially assists in
making language a more perfect exponent of human thought.
The following list exhibits some of these double forms:--
outer utter
morrow morn
lance launch
wine vine
wind vent (peg)
wise guise
why how
wagon wain
deploy display
cattle chattels
cross cruise
milk milch
make match
metal mettle
nib neb
person parson
beacon beckon
to too
tone tune
discreet discrete
sauce souse
scatter shatter
stick stitch
cap cape
quell kill
glass glaze
grass graze
&c. &c.
III. The third division of this class consists of Low Latin, or, as
they are sometimes called, ‘monkish Latin’ words. These have their
origin in classical Latin; but they are all corruptions of that
language, and were formed at a time when it had fallen into decay.
To this division belong such English words as ‘chance,’ ‘esquire,’
‘ewer’, ‘forest,’ ‘justle,’ ‘manage,’ ‘noise,’ ‘noon,’ ‘pillage,’
‘rear,’ &c. In all these we may recognise a Latin origin, though
the words themselves were unknown to the ancient Romans.
From the Greek verb ‘βάλλειν,’ to cast, probably came the Italian
‘ballo,’ the French ‘bal,’ and the English ‘ball.’ Playing at
ball was, in the middle ages, often associated with _singing_ and
dancing. Hence the Romance word ‘ballare,’ and the Old Spanish
‘ballar,’ which both meant ‘to sing.’ The French ‘ballade’ and the
English ‘ballad’ may be thus accounted for. Apropos of ‘ball,’ it
may be here noted that the word ‘bull,’ as in the ‘Pope’s bull,’ is
derived from ‘bulla,’ the Latin for ‘ball.’ It was the custom, in
the middle ages, after writing any document or letter, to affix to
it a seal in the form of a ‘ball,’ so that the Pope’s ‘bull’ really
means the Pope’s ‘ball.’
Our word ‘chance’ was in old French ‘chéance,’ from ‘cheoir.’ These
are all from the Latin verb ‘cadĕre,’ to fall (out) or happen. The
French adjective ‘méchant’ is derived from the old participle
‘més-chéant,’ from ‘més-choir,’ to fall out badly or unluckily. We
have not adopted this adjective, but our noun ‘mischance’ may be
traced to this source.
A curious case of a modern term derived from compound Latin roots
may be found in our word ‘squire.’ This is made up of the Latin
‘scutum,’ a shield, and ‘fero,’ I bear. Hence ‘scutifer,’ a
middle-age word, meant a shield-bearer, i.e. one who attended on
the knight, and carried his shield. In old French, ‘scutifer’ was
softened into ‘escuyer,’ or ‘écuyer;’ and it afterwards appeared in
English as ‘esquire,’ or ‘squire.’
The old French for ‘water’ was ‘aigue,’ from the Latin ‘aqua.’ From
this was formed the word ‘aiguière,’ a water-vessel; and this is
the origin of our English word ‘ewer,’as in ‘cream-ewer.’
Of the same class is the word ‘forest.’ This did not exist in
ancient Latin, but sprang up in later ages. The monks made the
word ‘foresta’ out of the Latin ‘foras,’ abroad, or out of doors;
the same root which produced the English words ‘foreign,’ and
‘foreigner,’ one who comes from abroad. The monkish Latin form was
‘foresta,’ the French ‘forêt,’ and the English ‘forest.’
Under this head may be also placed ‘comfort’ and ‘courage.’
The former of these is well known to be peculiarly English,
and there is no word in any of the continental languages which
exactly translates it. True, the French are beginning to use
the word ‘comfortáble;’ but it may be fairly doubted whether it
realises with them the same idea as with us. It has evidently a
Latin element; and the second syllable is, no doubt, derived from
the Latin ‘fortis,’ strong. So that, what ‘comforts’ would, in
the first instance, probably mean, what strengthens, and would
especially apply to ‘creature-comforts’--food or drink, which
strengthens the body. Afterwards it would be used in a secondary
and more extended sense.
The Italian word ‘coraggio’ is derived from ‘core,’ as the French
‘courage’ comes from ‘cœur;’ both these being originally from the
Latin ‘cor,’ the heart. From French the word ‘courage’ has passed
into English, where the spelling is the same, though it is somewhat
differently pronounced. But neither ‘comfort’ nor ‘courage’ is
found in classical Latin.
The word ‘contrada’ in Italian and Provençal came into French in
the form ‘contrée,’ and into English as ‘country.’ It is derived
from the Latin preposition ‘contra,’ against; and means, properly,
the part of the land which lies over--_against_--us. But the
word is altogether of modern manufacture. (Compare the German
‘Gegenstand,’ where the meaning is precisely the same.)
The Latin preposition ‘juxta’ has given rise to several words,
both French and English, which did not exist in ancient Latin. The
French ‘joust,’ a combat in which the antagonists rushed at, or
pushed _close to_, one another, is one of these. Also ‘ajouter,’
to add or put one thing _close_ to another. From these we have,
in English, the adverb ‘just,’ as in the phrase ‘just now,’ i.e.
_close_ to the present time; and also the verb ‘to adjust,’ i.e. to
place things _close to_ each other. ‘To justle,’ or ‘jostle,’ is a
frequentative verb, formed from the above adverb ‘just.’
The word ‘danger’ is composed of two Latin roots: ‘damn-um,’
loss, and ‘ger-o,’ I bear; these produced the Low Latin word
‘domigerium.’ This was afterwards corrupted and softened into the
French ‘danger,’ and in that form passed into English.
Our word ‘manage’ is from the Latin ‘manus,’ a hand, through the
French ‘main.’ There was a Low Latin word, ‘managerium,’ which
meant occupation or actual possession, in the sense of holding
in the hand. Thence the word was transferred to the furniture
requisite for the occupation of a house, and, in the shape of the
French ‘ménage,’ to the household of the occupier. The identity of
this word with the English ‘manage’ may be seen in the expression
‘bon mesnagier,’ one who understands how to conduct a household--a
good manager.
From the Latin ‘manēre,’ to remain, or dwell, are derived the
French ‘maison’ and the corresponding English ‘mansion;’ and from
the same source come the English words ‘manse,’ the clergyman’s
dwelling-house, and ‘manor,’ the lord’s dwelling-house.
From ‘minutus,’ the Latin participle of the verb ‘minuo,’ come the
English adjective ‘minúte’ and the noun ‘mínute.’ Properly ‘minuto
primo’ was, in Italian, the first division of the hour; ‘minuto
secondo’ was the _second_, and ‘minuto terzo’ the _third_ division;
which is, in French, ‘_tierce_,’ i.e. the sixtieth part of a
second. The English word ‘mite’ is only a contraction of minute--it
is a minute insect; and a ‘minuet’ is a dance with _short_ steps.
‘Noisome’ and ‘annoy’ are derived from the Latin ‘nocēre,’ to hurt
or injure; whence it may be conjectured also comes ‘noise,’ as
being something that annoys, as a stir, wrangle, or brawl.
The word ‘peel’ means the rind of fruit or the bark of a stick.
This is from the Latin ‘pellis,’ skin, from which comes the French
‘peau.’ The radical sense of this word is, that which is stripped
off, or _pilled_. ‘Pillage’ is a derivative of ‘pill,’ or ‘peel.’
It means a collection of things stripped off, or plundered.
The English word ‘palm’ (of the hand) is from the Greek παλάμη,
through the Latin ‘palma.’ A certain tree is called a palm because
of its broad spreading leaves, which resemble the palm of the hand;
and a palmer was formerly a pilgrim carrying a palm-branch in his
hand, in sign of his expedition to the Holy Land.