This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Glossaries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries articles Latin High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Linguistics: Etymology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Etymology Task Force. English Language High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Lists High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for List of Latin words with English derivatives (7 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 1,041 1,041 Nouns and adjectives 319,278 319,278 Verbs 67 67 Prepositions and other words used to form compound words 2,497 2,497 See also 582 582 Notes 23 23 References 1,241 1,241 Total 324,729 324,729

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

      Yes, puellile, puellarius, puellatoriae 58.174.49.225 (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 58.174.49.225 (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: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform?lang=Latin ) 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.

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)

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]

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 space...so 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.

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 75.148.9.37 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--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 76.15.132.170 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

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 136.242.108.102 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Ancient_Greek_words_with_English_derivatives --80.187.104.73 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

A

   Adoration

C

   Christus Victor
   Circumcision
   Codex
   Communion (Christian)
   Computus
   Confession (religion)
   Covenant (religion)
   Credo
   Crucifixion

D

   Deicide
   Discalced
   Disputation
   Divine providence
   Divinity

F

   Fornication

I

   Incarnation (Christianity)
   Intercession
   Invocation

L

   Limbo

M

   Mattock

P

   Partisan (military)
   Prayer
   Primum Mobile
   Propitiation
   Publican

Q

   Quint

R

   Rapture
   Religious conversion
   Reprobation
   Resurrection
   Revelation

S

   Septuagint
   Summum bonum

T

   Thrones
   Transfiguration (religion)
   Tunic

U

   Universe

V

   Vagina
   Virtue

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

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]