Talk:List of Latin words with English derivatives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening heading[edit]

Are there any English derivatives from the Latin word: puella, puellae, F(which means girl)?

      Yes, puellile, puellarius, puellatoriae (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, are there any other English derivatives from the Latin word: parvus, parva, parvum(which means small) besides parvovirus?

      Yes, parvitas (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page that would be useful for people looking at the /Phrases or Latin sayings found on wikipedia. I'll get the ball rolling. Better table formats would be welcome, plus links to declension and conjugation. :)

I'm uncertain as to the real utility of this. If we want someone to use a real lexicon, there are such things on line. (Ed: Yes, and here's a good one: ) I don't want to have every word in the Latin Phrases list construed here! And do people who don't know Latin know what the abbreviated forms -um and -a are (and they're not in the order American English speakers use) or what -ere, -i mean? That's enough of a problem for first year Latin students using a real dictionary. --MichaelTinkler, former high school Latin teacher
See Greek language/Lexicon. I'm not intending a complete list, just some words that are exceedingly common in sayings or derivatives. On Euglenids, for instance, it mentions that Euglena comes from the Greek eu and glene, and links back to that page so people can see what they mean. Doesn't that sort of thing seem handy to you?

For the verbs derivitive section, the "perfect stem" column often contains the fourth principle part instead of the third. However, English derivatives come from both (e.g. scribo, scribere, scripsi, scriptum). Maybe add another column or take out the first principle part?

bold text I think the tables are set up poorly, because often English words only come from certain principle parts, and some come from other forms. For example, agent and agenda don't look like they come from agere. They do look like they come from agens, agentis (pres. act. part.) and agendus, a, um (fut. pass. part.) respectively. I'm not competent enough with wikipedia and don't have the time to change it, though.

Moved this page[edit]

I've moved this from "Latin lexicon" to a new page "List of Latin words with English derivatives". The aim is not to provide a complete Latin dictionary, but to highlight in particular those words that have given rise to English words, and to indicate which forms of the words have been productive in forming compounds. its similar but not identical in layout to List of Greek words with English derivatives. rossb 21:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Combining Pages[edit]

We should combind this page: List of Latin words with English derivatives with Compound verbs in English consisting of Latin prefix and Latin verb for a more complete list of English cognates. I'm not sure how to do this though. Christopher 01:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. I'll try to sort this out over the next few days. rossb 08:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Christopher 10:04, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've now combined the two articles. It needs a bit more work to remove duplication and put things in a better order. rossb 12:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think List of English words from Latin verb forms should be merged into this article. There are so many Latin words with English derivatives that a list like this one can never hope to be anything like complete; moreover, such a large percentage of Latin words have English derivatives (and such a large percentage of English words have Latin origins) that this list is barely notable as it is. The list of English words from Latin verb forms, an unusual and much smaller category, would get lost if folded into this page. AJD (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed move to Wiktionary[edit]

User:Dmcdevit has added a template saying that this article should be moved to Wiktionary. There has been no discussion on this page, and I for one would oppose such a move. The article is not just a list (despite the name) - it gives an overview of the various ways in which for instance common Latin verbs can give rise to multiple derivatives in English. This is an important and encyclopedic subject of historical linguistice. Maybe the article could be better titled, and certainly it needs expansion, but it should be kept in Wikipedia. rossb 17:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I guess I just didn't really predict any dispute. That wasn't exactly what the template said, but it's okay. If you're considering it, I do think a better title is in order. How 'bout. English derivative from Latin or something along those lines? Dmcdevit·t 00:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've created a page (Latin verbs) which contains all of the information about verbs contained on this page and much more (especially the lists of derivatives, most of which are complete to the best of my knowledge/research etc). It also has obvious links to both the List of English prefixes and List of English suffixes. I'll make sure that all of the prefix/suffix info contained here (most of it already is) is included in one of these lists. I'm also planning on making lists of Latin nouns (and adjectives) soon (with lists of derivatives) in list form rather than with cells like this page (so much little info). I can move the "other parts of speech" section (all of which are interrogatives) into a general page for interrogatives of all languages (which it looks like I'll have to create from scratch). I personally think the "compound words" section is pretty useless (maybe not when it was created, but now I think it is) and it is certainly misnamed (these are examples of complex words, not compound words...if you think I'm splitting hairs here look it up). As soon as I've done all of this (1-2 weeks) I'll post here again and someone could collapse this site into a disambiguation page (which might facilitate navigation) or something...I don't know. I'll leave that to the computer savvy wikis among us.

My edits[edit]

Ok, I have removed words that are Germanic in origin. This is what I got off of Wiktionary:

Is From Germanic *isti, cognate with German ist < Proto-Indo-European *h1es- "to be". The paradigm of "to be" has been since the time of Proto-Germanic a synthesis of three originally distinct verb stems. The infinitive form "to be" is from Proto-Indo-European *bHeu- "to become". The words "is" and "are" are both derived from Proto-Indo-European *h1es- "to be". Lastly, the past forms starting with "w-" such as "was" and "were" are from Proto-Indo-European *wes- "to reside".

It Old English hit.

And From Middle English < Old English and, ond (thereupon, next) < Proto-Germanic *unda < Proto-Indo-European *anti (facing opposite, near, in front of, before).

Who Middle English < Old English hwȳ.

In Old English in Cman 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey - necrophilia isn't a Latin derivative at all. It comes from Greek "nekros" and "philia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think 'ad' going to 'advertisement' is a bit of a stretch. 'Advertisement' is a product of much more compounding and affixation than simply deriving from 'ad', you could certainly not say it is cognate.

You're correct (and "ad" was already listed further below with the other prepositions). Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


splenda splenda statueta —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see also[edit]

This is not bad as far as it goes. Let's see how it goes. The words given here of course are only a small fraction of the total number. You would need a dictionary for total comprehensiveness, but WP is not a dictionary. Let's not make this decision yet. Think about it, though. Meanwhile in the Latin article we have been having quite a furor over the see also. The list got so large that something had to be done, so we did it. I opposed taking out see also altogether. But, I agreed with taking most of it out for various reasons you can read there on the discussion page. Now I see a lot of those same entries are over here. I'm going to start taking them out from here also. For example, "Dog Latin" is not Latin. I put it under the Latin disambig. If you got any objections first go there and read that then come back here with your objection. The number of titles with "Latin" in them runs into the hundreds; we can't put them all in. Sorry. Let's cut it down to a minimum of supplementary information relevant to the topic and not obviously linked in the article. Thanks.Dave (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I find the name for this article to be misleading; it makes this article sound like it should be about Latin words which come from English. In fact, this name misled ME... Post any new names for this article here and I'll move the page if I like the name. I can't think of any names for this article myself. ~WikiRigby talk sign! 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

spalla (shoulder) --> espalier[edit]

Would someone kindly make this addition as I am editing from a cell phone and also am not

Good at doing edits to tables, thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B12C:C2A2:2F80:9A71:D38F:91A3 (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

If someone could add "turris", meaning tower, and the derivative "turret", that would be splendid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please ad link to sister site on Wiktionary (for Greek)[edit]

See -- (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge in content from and old CfD[edit]

An old CfD called for listifying the contents of Category:Latin loanwords. What follows is the list of the items that are there. These need to be merged into the content in the appropriate section.




   Christus Victor
   Communion (Christian)
   Confession (religion)
   Covenant (religion)


   Divine providence




   Incarnation (Christianity)






   Partisan (military)
   Primum Mobile




   Religious conversion


   Summum bonum


   Transfiguration (religion)





Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikilinks for "English derivatives" columns[edit]

Currently the "Meaning" and "English derivatives" columns of the tables in these articles link to Wikipedia. This is pretty clearly wrong, IMO. These are references to words-as-words, not to the corresponding concepts. It's especially silly that, for example, "alien" is piped to Alien (law), as if the Latin derivation only applies to the legal sense, not to little green men, or the generic adjectival sense of "unfamiliar, strange".

I would suggest either:

  1. Don't wikilink these columns at all.
  2. Wikilink all terms in these columns to Wiktionary.

Any thoughts on which of these options are preferable? I'm leaning towards 2. Either change would be very tedious to implement by hand, but could be automated without too much difficulty.

Edit: Also just stumbled on List of Greek and Latin roots in English and its subpages (e.g. List of Greek and Latin roots in English/P) which are organized similarly, and suffer from the same problem re wikilinks. Also, I should add that while I think the linking situation is not helpful (and in some cases even misleading) for readers of these articles, the main reason I want to fix them up is that they cause a lot of ongoing maintenance work for editors (a lot of the edit history of these articles is editors who are working on repairing links that target dab pages, or removing links to articles that have been deleted, or similar) Colin M (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed they should not be linked to WP. For example, 'vinegar' is linked but 'chaff' is not, despite the fact that everyone knows what vinegar is but I suspect a good number of people do not know what chaff is.
However, I don't see why they should be linked to Wikt either. As anywhere in WP, if you come across a word you don't know, you look it up. Wikt wouldn't even distinguish homographs, unless you link to "Etymology N", and that wouldn't be stable long-term. Better to use a parenthetical dab here in the column. It might be reasonable to link to a particularly obscure word, but that could be either to Wikt or here in WP (e.g. if the WP article is more specific). But IMO that should be the exception. Certainly not worth investing a lot of work into. 11:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The reason to link to wikt would be that the things being listed here are words as words. If the purpose is to enable readers to get more information about the word (its definition(s), or etymology, or whatever), then wikt is the best place we can guide them to for that. (It would also be consistent with the link destination for the first two columns.) Linking to dab pages seems like a worse solution because, for one thing, not all words will have a corresponding dab page, but also it doesn't fit as well with the intent of giving the reader a pathway to learn more information about the word (rather than encyclopedic topics that happen to be referred to by that word).
You make a good point re homographs, but I think it will only come up rarely, and when it does, the reader should be able to find the appropriate etymology section based on the corresponding information in the row of the table that they clicked. Colin M (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went ahead and changed all link targets to Wiktionary. There are a few weirdly formatted rows (e.g. the 'bonus' row) which my script wasn't able to handle, but otherwise the results seem pretty clean. I think the article still has major issues, and it's questionable whether it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:LSC. But this at least solves the immediate problem of this article being a tarpit of disambiguation work, and adding noise to Special:WhatLinksHere for hundreds or thousands of articles. Colin M (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Colin M: Congratulations on having achieved what is, as of right now, the largest article on the English Wikipedia! jp×g 22:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting this article[edit]

Since this article is now 577,000+ bytes long, it is in desperate need of a split. Therefore, I propose that we split this page into multiple different pages:

The last section can stay on here. I propose this split not only due to length, but also because it is practical to split this page based on each part of speech. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems obvious. This can be done boldly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support this. Zai (💬📝⚡️) 12:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at other articles listed at Template:English words of foreign origin, it seems more common to split alphabetically. e.g. List of English words of French origin (S–Z), List of English words of Arabic origin (A-B), List of Greek and Latin roots in English/H. But seeing as this article already does the split by PoS, I suppose it's fine to follow the path of least resistance. It does seem like it will take a lot of manual effort to separate the current nouns+adjectives table. Colin M (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but it would also take a lot of effort to sort every word by the letter. And it also depends on how many words of each letter there are. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could be done easily with a script. Colin M (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to have gained consensus; I am splitting out verbs now. Nouns & adjectives are all in one list, so those may have to be sorted first. Tol | talk | contribs 00:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could probably also just keep the nouns and adjectives combined. (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was me, I forgot to log in. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blubabluba9990, Colin M, Onetwothreeip, and Tol: That section is well over 300k bytes though, meaning per the WP:Article size guideline, we should probably split and sort it (above 100k total article size "almost certainly" requires splitting). I would do it, but they are admittedly my weak spot in the English language haha. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have considered splitting that section out and sorting it. However, 300K bytes doesn't really affect WP:LENGTH, since the de facto consensus on length seems to be keeping articles under 410K bytes. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, since the section is very disproportionate to the rest of the article, the nouns and adjectives section should be split into a separate article, and then it would make the most sense to sort them into nouns and adjectives. I am using a phone and I don't really have the time or dedication to sort all of the words into nouns and adjectives, so Onetwothreeip could do that, since he is usually the one who handles splits. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 14:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Would you be up for separating the nouns and adjectives table into nouns and adjectives? Felix QW (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for notifying. I can easily split sections into new articles, but the nouns and adjectives are mixed together into the same table. Separating nouns and adjectives would have to be done manually, as in each noun/adjective moved from one table to a new one. I don't think this is practical, or even advisable, so I withdraw my apparent support of this from two years ago. A split based on alphabetical order, such as A to L and M to Z, would be much more supportable. I or another editor can conduct such a split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]