# -Mātus vs. -matus



## ahvalj

When forming adjectives from Greek nouns in _-μα,_ Latin had two options: to borrow Greek adjectives (_asomatus_) or to make its own (_diadēmātus_), which practically differed in the length of the vowel _a_ and, consequently, in the position of the stress. Such adjectives, most often created artificially, are very widespread in the biological terminology of the last centuries (e. g. _Gnathostomata_ — Gnathostomata - Wikipedia). Which would be the preferred way to place the stress in such modern forms: should we pretend they were borrowed from Greek or were created with the Latin _-ātus_?


----------



## Scholiast

salvete collaborantes!

I think ahvalj, who is (rightly) well-known to Foreasters and justly respected in the neighbouring 
*Etymology, History of languages, and Linguistics (EHL) *Forum is aware already that quantity and stress are not the same thing.
It depends (it always does, does it not?).
Anything, _diadematus_ for example, notionally formed from a first-conjugation verb, will have a long ā and the major stress will lie there too.
For transliterated, rather than translated, Greek terms, such as the _Gnathostomata_ which ahvalj specifically mentions, instinct tells me that in modern usage we should stick by the Greek emphasis, _gnathostómata_.
Σ


----------



## ahvalj

I mentioned _diadēmātus_ as an illustration of how this Greek type of adjectives could be assimilated into Latin (patterned after e. g. the proper Latin _racēmātus_). There is also a number of modern compounds with the Latin first element, e.g. _angustistomata _(WoRMS - World Register of Marine Species - Onychostoma angustistomata (Fang, 1940)). Quite often, modern authors don't realize that _-at-_ is the part of the Greek stem, hence such names as:

_Placodermi_ (Placodermi - Wikipedia),
_Protostomia_ (Protostomia - Wiktionary),
_stigmatus_ (Great hanging parrot - Wikipedia)
_alismoides_ (ITIS Standard Report Page: Ottelia alismoides),
_Dianemaceae_ (ITIS Standard Report Page: Dianemaceae).
So, I would suggest to separate the modern practice (e. g. most English-speaking biologists I have heard normally pronounce _stomáta_ and would be surprised to learn that e. g. _Gnathostomata_ and _Tubulidentata_ should have different stress; for _stigmata_ English dictionaries allow both stresses (stigmata - pronunciation of stigmata by Macmillan Dictionary & stigmata noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com)) from the theoretical considerations.

Overall, what could be the rules to follow? As far as I understand, in Greek the adjectives in _-ματοϛ_ are only possible as compounds (in _κάματος_ the second _α_ is part of the root) or as secondary formations (_θαυματός_ from _θαυμαστός_ — θαυματός - Βικιλεξικό). So, if we find a compound made up of Greek elements, it could be treated as a properly Greek adjective with antenultimate stress, OK. What then to do with cases _polystigmatus_ (ITIS Standard Report Page: Diploconger polystigmatus) vs. _nigrostigmatus_ (ITIS Standard Report Page: Creagrutus nigrostigmatus) and _stigmatus_ (a link above)? Should we teach biologists to pronounce _polystígmatus,_ _nigrostigmátus _(or also _nigrostígmatus_) and _stigmátus _(without variants as having no Greek grounds)?

P. S. Does anybody know what has happened to the view count in the last weeks: the recent threads in various fora are shown as having had ten times more views than I am used to?


----------



## ahvalj

As a suggestion: the real Greek nouns in _-mata_ should be stressed on the antepenultimate syllable (_stómata, stígmata_), whereas their scientific derivatives should be regarded as Latin adjectives in _-ātus_ and stressed accordingly (_Gnathostomáta, polystigmátus_) — after all, there are countless modern words like _Coelenterata_ (Coelenterata - Wikipedia) and _Hemichordata_ (Hemichordate - Wikipedia), where the Latin suffix is obvious, so perhaps _stigmátus_ (pretending to be _**stigmātus_) should be allowed for biological use like the above _diadēmātus?_


----------



## Scholiast

Scholiasta omnibus SPD,


ahvalj said:


> As a suggestion: the real Greek nouns in _-mata_ should be stressed on the antepenultimate syllable (_stómata, stígmata_)


As a Graeco-Latin 'purist' I would stick with this, but not to the point of contrarianship with current general usage in physiological or biological scientific circles, where I would go with the flow on words such as_ polystigmátus_, even if it 'feels' wrong. In scientific research and publication, the chief endeavour must be clarity and comprehensibility, and I think this is more important than linguistic perfectionism.


ahvalj said:


> Does anybody know what has happened to the view count in the last weeks: the recent threads in various fora are shown as having had ten times more views than I am used to?


Yes, this is a mystery to me as well. Thanks ahvalj for pointing it out, but ahvalj regularly inhabits more numerous WR Fora than I do. Perhaps a Moderator could look into it?

Σ


----------



## Snodv

If I may go off on a tangent, the Greek neuter -ma nouns are most interesting to me as the origin of some Spanish masculine nouns which terminate in
 -a:  el drama, el programa, el problema, etc.  Spanish eliminated the neuter gender except for a pronoun, and most of those old neuters became masculine despite their appearance.  While they have regularly formed Spanish plurals, losing the -t- of the Greek stem, they may be identified in English by their adjectives which retain the -mat- stem, e.g. problematic, dramatic.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again,

Yes Snodv (# 6) Romance legacy tongues assumed the Latin neuter gender into the masculine, I do not understand why, and would be grateful if anyone here if anyone can supply or offer an explanation.

Enjoying your contributions here, I hope it is not inappropriate to say.

Σ


----------



## Snodv

Not at all, it is gratifying to be validated!  A great many of my acquaintances have no interest in this fascinating stuff. 
About neuter > masculine, my own conjecture, or suspicion, is that it has to do with the preponderance of identical forms in the second declension.  Latin 2nd declension ablatives (or reduced accusatives?) seem to have become the Spanish -o nouns, whether neuter or masculine.  Why preserve a label  without distinctions in form?  Third declension forms in certain cases are alike across the genders as well.
One other thing that happened to Latin neuters was number confusion, e.g. singular _folium_, plural _folia_, Spanish singular _hoja_ (feminine).  But this happened in at least one word while it was still Latin:  _opera,_ neuter plural and feminine singular.


----------

