Re: THEORY: derivation question

At 6:05 pm +0100 25/3/99, Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:
>   Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:15:41 -0500
>   From: Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
>
>                              Notice how the simple root _nation_ has given
>   long words like _denationalization_.
>
>And natio is a derived noun in Latin, from nasci "to be born".
Indeed - the root is *na: (earlier *gna: )

na:sci: = I become born
na:tus = having been born
na:ta:lis (adj) - of or pertaining to birth
na:tio: [gen: na:tio:nis] = a birth; a species, race; a race of people; a
nation
na:ti:uus (adj) = that has arisen from birth; inborn, innnate; native
na:tu:ra = birth [rare meaning]; nature [with practically same wide range
of meanings as the English word]
etc.
etc

>
>                                                                    And you
>   can't say *coloral, even tho -al is a legitimate suffix.  Frequently,
>   origin has to do with it.  -al is a Latin ending, and color is not
>   Latin.  But, these are rarely completely consistent.
>
>Unfortunate example. Color is in fact a Latin word,
Indeed - pure Latin: color [gen. colo:ris] (masc.) = colo(u)r.

>and I don't think
>a Roman would have hesitated to use coloralis as an adjective, if they
>felt like it. It might even be attested. (Ray?)
'fraid not - tho, as you say, it would've been a legitimate derivative.
And I'd  not rule out someone, somewhere & somewhen coining the word
"coloral".

>The same derivation is
>certainly found for other words in that declination (e.g., floralis).
Indeed. (And if someone points out that 'flo:s', 'flo:ris' (masc.) does not
decline like 'color', 'colo:ris', I'd say stop being pedantic. In earlier
Latin the word was 'colo:s', 'colo:ris'.  The regularization of the nom. to
-or took place in the late BC, early AD period - it just didn't affect the
monosyllables.)

Ray.