I have recently noticed something about a seeming shift in the way the adjectival suffix -alis was used over time. Earlier (that is, "Classical and earlier") formations such as aeternalis and nervalis displayed a dropping of the nominal/adjectival suffix, -us, from the stem (aetern- and nerv-, respectively) in suffixing with -alis. In later (Post-Classical) formations, however, such as Late Latin actualis and Medieval gradualis, there seems to have been an acceptance of reanalyzing the stem by considering the "u" of "-us" to be part of the stem (making the instant stems actu- and gradu-, yielding a somewhat different feel to the end products of the suffixation) in suffixing with -alis. Does anybody here know why this might have been...what the reason for such a change over time might be?
Spelling conventions in the usage of "-alis".
- Thread starter Michael Zwingli
- Start date
Which it is, isn't it? Actus and gradus are fourth-declension nouns, not second, which probably explains why the u was retained in the adjectives.
I'm not sure...by which I mean it doesn't appear so to myself. Leaving aeternalis out of the discussion (since that was a poor example in the first place, muddying the water a bit), we have as the genitive forms of the three remaining nouns: nervī, āctūs, and gradūs. Our three stems, or "bases" (to use the more traditional term), then, are: nerv-, āct-, and grad- (as opposed to nerv-, āctu-, and gradu-), no? In other words, the genitive inflective suffixes, as I understand the matter, play no part in determining in the stem for derivation. Why, then, should part of the genitive suffix in 4th decl. nouns be retained and appear within the result of derivation itself? I cannot understand this, and in my ignorance am somewhat of the mind that it might be simply a post-Classical convention for some obscure purpose (euphony?)
Are there any treatments of this topic which I might read?
Last edited:
Yeah, it would be because they're 4th-declension. There are some adjectives that don't make sense, though, like bustualis ("bustuālis, e, adj. [bustum], of or pertaining to the place where dead bodies were burned, Sid. Ep. 3, 12; Prud. Cath. 9, 52."). I think that's a failure in applying the analogy, but 4th-declension nouns do sometimes have the -u- retained in the stem, I think.
Dantius, do you know if this was true even earlier than in post-Classical times? I can't think of one. Another question (the obverse question) would be: are there examples of 4th decl. derivations wherein the "u" was not retained?
EDIT: I note that from anus (the 4d noun meaning "elderly woman", not the 2d noun meaning "ring/anus") we derive anīlis, in which there appears to be no reanalysis of the stem (in which the "u" of the inflective suffix is not retained as part of the stem), but this is not a case of working with -alis, though.
Last edited:
This is a fascinating example, as bustum appears itself to have involved extensive reanalysis (or metanalysis) in it's formation...from amb(i-) ustum (< perf. info. of uro "to burn/consume with flame") > am bustum > bustum, or something like that. Very good! This is a similar type of reanalysis as I am imagining in the case of suffixation with -alis.
Many linguists dispute the grammatical accuracy of the pedagogical practice of dividing nouns like nervus and āctus as nerv-us and āct-us and identifying "-us" as a nominative singular ending. According to a common treatment of Latin inflection, aeternus and nervus are o-stem nouns: they have the stems aeterno- and nervo- respectively, not aetern- and nerv-, whereas actus and gradus have the stems actu- and gradu-. According to this view, the Latin nominative singular suffix does not have the form "-us", but the form "-s" (o-stems modify their stem vowel to u in various circumstances in Classical Latin). Some sources that discuss and describe this kind of analysis: "The phonological basis of Latin case patterns", Joseph Emonds (2014), "A Descriptive Analysis of Latin Declension", Fred W. Householder Jr. (1947), "Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin", András Cser (2016) (see section 6.3. "Allomorphy in the nominal inflection", starting on page 124).
Adjectives ending in -uālis do not seem to be common, but I'm not sure if the fact that many of them are late formations necessarily indicates that the ending itself is characteristic of late Latin: there are also many late adjectives formed with plain -ālis.
As Dantius said, there are some cases where -uālis appears on an adjective not from a u-stem noun, where it must be analogical. There are also some cases of u-stem nouns with derivatives not ending in -uālis (one I've found so far is spīritālis; I suppose also commeātālis) but there don't seem to be many.
Adjectives ending in -uālis do not seem to be common, but I'm not sure if the fact that many of them are late formations necessarily indicates that the ending itself is characteristic of late Latin: there are also many late adjectives formed with plain -ālis.
As Dantius said, there are some cases where -uālis appears on an adjective not from a u-stem noun, where it must be analogical. There are also some cases of u-stem nouns with derivatives not ending in -uālis (one I've found so far is spīritālis; I suppose also commeātālis) but there don't seem to be many.
Thank you, Hector. This sheds some light. Indeed, I now remember reading (and forgetting!) that 2nd declension nouns are considered "o-stem". One question: are the above and other 4th decl. nouns, then, called "u-stem" nouns under this paradigm (as I say, I cannot remember this)?
Last edited:
Yes, that's exactly what they are called. I just thought of something else that seems relevant: we don't only see -u- before the suffix -ālis, but also before other vowel-initial suffixes, some of which supply a larger number of examples of adjectives that were common in Classical times. Lewis and Short calls frūctuōsus "very freq. and class"; lūctuōsus is another common one.
Also actuosus, which is classical, still retains the u. And L&S lists gradalis instead of gradualis.
Wow, well...yes indeed! I do find gradualis a bit more euphonic, though. A little dipthongization "helps the medicine go down", to quote Julie Andrews. The prevalence of historical dipthongization is of the things that I like about Spanish, in fact.
@Hector, thanks much for your input, and welcome to the forum!