# Word forms  noun to adjective triangle



## xl.prac

Hello guys, I was wondering why did the word “triangle” turns into “triangular”, when we talk about the word form from noun to adjective. Why can't I write “triangious” or “trianglarious” or something like that?

I searched on the etymologyonline, it says the word comes from a latin word “triangulus”, but as a foreigner at lower C1 level, I still can't fathom what does that mean.

I was wondering if anyone knows how it goes? Is there any rules on it? Where I can go for further reference, if necessary?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## JulianStuart

Are you asking why the Latin word of triangulus was created (tri- means three and angulus means corner in Latin)?  Triangle is how the noun word evolved into the English we use today, but the adjective retains the u between the g and l, with - ar denoting an adjective.  ...


----------



## xl.prac

I am not asking how the word is created. I think I have difficulty in understanding how words transform in different forms, especially among nouns, adjectives, adverbs and things like that. By the way, thanks for the link, it opened a new world to me.


JulianStuart said:


> Are you asking why the Latin word of triangulus was created (tri- means three and angulus means corner in Latin)?  Triangle is how the noun word evolved into the English we use today, but the adjective retains the u between the g and l, with - ar denoting an adjective.  There is a separate forum  Etymology, History of languages, and Linguistics (EHL) if you have a more specific question.


----------



## entangledbank

No, there is no general and simple way of explaining this. English is a mixture of native Germanic, of Latin, and of French derived from Latin. Often all three go to influencing a word. In this example, I would think that it's because in the history of Latin, some weak unstressed vowels were lost, so _angul-_ became _angl-_ in descendants like French. We get _angle_ and _triangle_ through French, as they're more common words, but the adjective is a more learned word, so we took the Latin form.


----------



## xl.prac

entangledbank said:


> No, there is no general and simple way of explaining this. English is a mixture of native Germanic, of Latin, and of French derived from Latin. Often all three go to influencing a word. In this example, I would think that it's because in the history of Latin, some weak unstressed vowels were lost, so _angul-_ became _angl-_ in descendants like French. We get _angle_ and _triangle_ through French, as they're more common words, but the adjective is a more learned word, so we took the Latin form.


Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it!


----------



## Penyafort

Latin was the language of culture for many centuries in much of (Western) Europe. You will see that, if some adjectives look similar (with just ending adaptations) is because those words that belonged more to the written than to the spoken language -at least back then- were often just taken straight from Latin. In the case of English, given that it's a Germanic language at its core, is much more obvious. The common words (eye, mouth, moon...) will look Germanic, while its corresponding educated adjectives (ocular, buccal, lunar...) will look Latin.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Generally in languages with derivation, there are regular ways to change words from one class to another.

For example: in Spanish, many adjectives can be formed from nouns by adding the suffix -_oso_, while in English, It's -_y_:_ ruido - noise / ruidoso - noisy_. Each language tends to have a few ways to make this happen. (Also: the suffix -_y_ in English can derive adjective from some verbs: _to chew - chewy_.)

As mentioned above, one way to do this in Latin was to add -_al_ (or -_ar_ in words that ended in -_l_) to a noun:_ triangulus - triangular_. Many languages inherit these adjectives as they are straight from Latin, so they don't follow the normal patterns of adjective creation.


----------



## Sobakus

The English scientific register has more or less nativised this pattern: _circle-circular, module-modular, area-areal, neuron-neural, rectum-rectal, spectacle-spectacular._ _-al_ is chosen instead of _-ar_ if another _-r-_ preceeds.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Sobakus said:


> The English scientific register has more or less nativised this pattern: _circle-circular, module-modular, area-areal, neuron-neural, rectum-rectal, spectacle-spectacular._ _-al_ is chosen instead of _-ar_ if another _-r-_ preceeds.


Of course, these are all Latin loans, including the adjectives (except _neural, _which is composed of a Latin suffix on a Greek root).


----------



## Sobakus

pollohispanizado said:


> Of course, these are all Latin loans, including the adjectives (except _neural, _which is composed of a Latin suffix on a Greek root).


They are loans, and the pattern of their formation has been nativised so that the speaker can productively form new words. E.g. "she steals with a _burgular_ efficiency", "a punch in the _schnozzular_ zone" (the area around the nose) etc. These are naturally playful coinages, but the pattern is absolutely standard with any scientific vocabulary that looks vaguely Latin or Greek.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Sobakus said:


> They are loans, and the pattern of their formation has been nativised so that the speaker can productively form new words. E.g. "she steals with a _burgular_ efficiency", "a punch in the _schnozzular_ zone" (the area around the nose) etc. These are naturally playful coinages, but the pattern is absolutely standard with any scientific vocabulary that looks vaguely Latin or Greek.


Schnozzular obviously is not a serious word; and somebody who robs your house is called a burgular, so I'm a little confused about that. I would say that English speakers who know Latin or Scientific English might use such suffixes, or certain terms have that suffix to sound funny, but it is certainly not nativized or _that_ widespread.


----------



## Sobakus

pollohispanizado said:


> Schnozzular obviously is not a serious word;


Firstly, you've just repeated my own words:


> These are naturally playful coinages


If you intended to contradict me, it's obvious that there's no contradiction between my own words and my own words. A nativised suffix must be able to form new words whose meaning should be transparent. _schnozzular_ is an example of such a word. There's no requirement that these new words be serious.


pollohispanizado said:


> and somebody who robs your house is called a burgular, so I'm a little confused about that.


They're called _burglar_ /ˈbəːɡlə/.


pollohispanizado said:


> I would say that English speakers who know Latin or Scientific English might use such suffixes, or certain terms have that suffix to sound funny, but it is certainly not nativized or _that_ widespread.


It is certainly nativised - thousands of scientific papers are written each year that employ new coinages with these suffixes. While most English speakers will have no idea about their meaning because of being unfamiliar with the meaning of the words they've been formed to, they will easily be able to determine that the new word is an adjective and contains the suffix _-ar/al._

Here's an easy proof: try forming such adjectives to fake words so that _-ar_ follows an _-r-_ (_praeped - praepedar_) or _-al_ follows an _-l-_ (_camendle - camendulal_). Your brain will instantly see the problem because these violate the productive pattern.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Sobakus said:


> It is certainly nativised - thousands of scientific papers are written each year that employ new coinages with these suffixes


I only want to say that scientific papers, and the terms coined therein, are not exemplary of what _I_ personally consider to be the way that native English-speakers speak regularly. (Not to mention that, as the new "language of science", I assume a good amount of said papers are written in English by non-natives.)


----------



## Sobakus

The question is not about speaking regularly, but whether the suffix exists outside of direct borrowings from Latin/French and can be used productively to form new words. The answer is an unambiguous yes.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Sobakus said:


> The question is not about speaking regularly, but whether the suffix exists outside of direct borrowings from Latin/French and can be used productively to form new words. The answer is an unambiguous yes.


Well, the question _I _thought we were discussing was the "nativization". 


Sobakus said:


> The English scientific register has more or less nativised





Sobakus said:


> the pattern of their formation has been nativised





Sobakus said:


> It is certainly nativised



Continue with your topic.


----------



## Sobakus

pollohispanizado said:


> Well, the question _I _thought we were discussing was the "nativization".


A suffix has been nativised when it exists outside of direct borrowings from Latin/French and can be used productively to form new words. Even if you're initially unfamiliar with the word "nativisation", it's not rocket science to deduce that equivalence from the fact that I substitute one for the other in the same conversation. The fact that you were unable to do so and decided instead I was suddenly talking about something else entirely is quite bewildering to me.


pollohispanizado said:


> Continue with your topic.


No need - you're the only other participant of that topic and it has already been fully covered.


----------

