6 ms·
I should note that in Latin the masculine agentive suffix is definitely -or. It may look like -tor, but that -t- is actually a separate element marking the perf
by thaumasiotes 2y ago
I should note that in Latin the masculine agentive suffix is definitely -or. It may look like -tor, but that -t- is actually a separate element marking the perfect passive participle form. (From which agent nouns are derived.)
Most verbs have a passive participial form that includes the -t-, but in some it's been swallowed by an S. The only example that comes to mind is missus [sent], the passive participle of mittere [send]. The modern French verb is apparently mettre. I guess if the agent nouns are formed from that root, they should be metteur and mettrice? But if they descend from Latin, the masculine form might not use -tt-.
I feel pretty safe in saying that "sender" would be missor in Latin - it's an attested (though "very rare") word - but I have no instinct for what the feminine form would be. Missrix just doesn't feel right.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- CRConrad 2y ago> is missus [sent] You wish. I sure couldn't send my missus away at the drop of a hat. ___ ETA: > Missrix just doesn't feel right. I'm guessing they'd just (re?)insert the 't': "Misstrix" feels quite pronouncable.
- thaumasiotes 2y agoI don't think -sst- is a possible sequence in Latin. (Neither is -ssr-, but that one suffers from the bigger problem that -sr- probably won't work either.) Mistrix is certainly a word that could exist, but I have no knowledge of whether it would be a correct form for a female sender.