# Modern professions: problems with a few male/female versions **URL:** \ **Category:** Learning Latin\ **Created:** [August 4, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/modern-professions-problems-with-a-few-male-female-versions/11872 "2013-08-04T15:31:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Carolus\_Raeticus](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Carolus\_Raeticus](https://www.textkit.com/u/Carolus_Raeticus)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/modern-professions-problems-with-a-few-male-female-versions/11872/1 "2013-08-04T15:31:03Z")
Salvete omnes! I am writing an encounter generator creating (more or less random) combinations of places and persons (name, gender, profession, age). The purpose is to be able to concentrate on writing (e.g. short dialogues) without having to ponder for long about names etc. This is _not_ for creative writing, but for creating writing exercises on the fly. For the professions I am using those from Traupman’s _Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency_ and also a few from a visual dictionary (Dover publications). Some female (and a few male) forms are missing, however. Here is list: - craftsman = _faber_: what is the female form, “fabra”? Related: “faber tignarius”, “faber electricus”, “faber lapidarius”, “metallorum faber”, “faber ocularius”, - hairdresser = _ornatrix; tonstrix; concinnator capillorum_: what is the male form, simply “concinnator capillorum”? - interviewer = _interrogator_: what is the female form, “interrogatrix”? - merchant = _mercator_: what is the female form, “mercatrix”? - prostitute = _meretrix; prostituta_: what is the male equivalent? - plasterer = _tector_: what is the female form, “tectrix”? - police officere = _vigil_: what is the female form, simply “vigil” as well? - presenter (e.g. TV) = _praesentator_: what is the female form, “praesentatrix”? - retailer = _propola_: what is the female form. Note: according to _Forcellini_ the word _propola, -ae f._ means _mercatoris taberna_ not a female retailer. - sheriff = _geraefa_: what is the female form, simply “geraefa” (similar to “agricola”, “nauta”, etc.)? - soldier = _miles_: what is the female form, simply “miles” as well? - undertaker = _pollinctor_: what is the female form, “pollinctrix”? - wrestler = _luctator_: what is the female form, “luctatrix”? Is it possible to simply replace all _-tor_ endings by _-trix_? I do not feel absolutely comfortable with that solution. Generally speaking, is it allowable to use _-trix_ only in order to emphasise the feminine character and otherwise use the _-tor_ one (retaining feminine gender, of course), e.g. _praesentator, -oris f._ Ut valeatis, Carolus Raeticus ---
**Author:** ![Shenoute](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@Shenoute](https://www.textkit.com/u/Shenoute)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/modern-professions-problems-with-a-few-male-female-versions/11872/2 "2013-08-04T17:04:12Z")
I don’t know if -trix can be used in all cases but a lot of the words thus formed seem to have been used in Late/Medieval or Renaissance Latin. - fabricatrix (Forcellini and also [here](http://books.google.fr/books?id=e2oTAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA91&dq=fabricatrix&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=74f-UaysMKKa0AWQwYDYDg&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=fabricatrix&f=false) - concinnatrix (in a [Latin-French dictionary](http://books.google.fr/books?id=MgZEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT144&dq=concinnatrix&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=VIn-UerqAqep0QWWvIDYDw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=concinnatrix&f=false) of the XVIIIth century) - mercatrix (found in legal texts) - tectrix (name of a kind of spider) - luctatrix (name of a shell or [epithet of the Holy Virgin](http://books.google.fr/books?id=CW9tq55VKjgC&pg=PA344&dq=luctatrix&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=DYr-UZfNJ66N0wWVz4H4BQ&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=luctatrix&f=false) ---
**Author:** ![whsiv](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/f6c823/32.png) [@whsiv](https://www.textkit.com/u/whsiv)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 11:24am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/modern-professions-problems-with-a-few-male-female-versions/11872/3 "2013-08-05T11:24:42Z")
-A _tonsor_ (3rd decl.) is a masculine word that means hairdresser/barber. -I’m not positive what the word for a male prostitute is in Latin, but you could go for _gigolo, -ōnis,_ m. ---
**Author:** ![Carolus\_Raeticus](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Carolus\_Raeticus](https://www.textkit.com/u/Carolus_Raeticus)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/modern-professions-problems-with-a-few-male-female-versions/11872/4 "2013-08-05T19:30:15Z")
Thank’s a lot, especially to you, Shenoute. You helped a lot. I would never have encountered _fabricatrix_ on my own. I adopted the versions suggested by you. As to the _-trix_-endings I found an [interesting site](http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/suffixes/tor/) which covers at least the correct way of adding this special ending. That gave me _pollinctrix_, _interrogatrix_, _prasentatrix_. As for the rest I adopted the same forms for female as for male: _vigil, propola, miles_. I chucked _geraefa_ as that seemed rather obscure. And by the way, a male prostitute (esp. young adult ones) were called _exoletus_. According to Forcellini _puer meritorius_ is a synonym. I found it in the _Thesaurus eroticus linguae Latinae_ (written by one Carolus Rambach). By the way, this [genealogical web-site](http://www.genealogia.de/berufe.htm) gives a list of professions in Latin as they appeared in church documents. The translations are in German, but perhaps using Google-Translate you may still find it useful. Valete, Carolus Raeticus ---
**Author:** ![Diaphanus](https://www.textkit.com/user_avatar/www.textkit.com/diaphanus/32/27_2.png) [@Diaphanus](https://www.textkit.com/u/Diaphanus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2014, 7:41pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/modern-professions-problems-with-a-few-male-female-versions/11872/5 "2014-03-28T19:41:17Z")
Salvete omnes! Thanks a lot for making use of my site, Carole. (I really ought to update that thing soon.) The words _vigil_ and _miles_ can be used for males and females (according to the OLD). For these other words, you can use the all-purpose feminizing suffix _-issa_: e.g. _propolissa_ from _propola_. Greek-derived masculine words in _-ta_ like _athleta_ and _nauta_ can be feminized by replacing the _-ta_ with _-tria_: _athletria_, _nautria_ (as seen in Traupman’s book). Traupman seems to be suggesting _geraefria_ as the feminine version of _geraefa_ (p. 377, Fourth Edition), but I can neither find another reference to such a word, nor see where on earth he got such a thing. I think it is a mistake. (By the way, according to the “sheriff” entry in the OED, _geréfa_ is Old English for “reeve.”) _Propola_ is the Latinized version of the Greek προπώλης, and this προπώλης has a longer version προπωλητής, which has the feminine form προπωλήτρια. I suppose, then, you could use _propoletria_ as the feminine form of _propola_. > [@Carolus Raeticus](#): > > Is it possible to simply replace all _-tor_ endings by _-trix_? I do not feel absolutely comfortable with that solution. That is not surprising. The _-tor_/_-sor_ suffixes seem to be fairly simple, but there are times when big problems can arise. The _-tor_ at the ends of these words can easily be replaced with _-trix_ to make the feminine versions. However, when you have words that end in _-sor_, _-ssor_, and _-xor_, things become more complicated. The problems arise because of the phonetic changes that occur when _-tor_ becomes _-sor_ and interacts with the roots of verbs. While the _t_ in _-tor_ usually changes, the _t_ in _-trix_ does not. (According to Lane’s _A Latin Grammar_, section 159, when the combination _tt_ appears right before _r_, it becomes _st_.) This lack of change is important because the words that are created do not correspond as neatly as the _-tor_/_-trix_ pairs of words do. _Lusor_ is for _lud-tor_, where the _dt_ became _tt_ and then _ss_ and finally _s_. The feminine version is _lustrix_ (_lud-trix_). Although the _d_ in _lud-_ changed to _s_, the _t_ in _-trix_ did not change at all. Traupman has the feminine version misspelled as _lusrix_ on page 361 of his book (Fourth Edition), but he has it spelled correctly on page 44! _Possessor_ is for _possed-tor_, where the _dt_ became _tt_ and then _ss_. The feminine version is _possestrix_ (_possed-trix_). Again, the _t_ in _-trix_ did not change. _Impulsor_ is for _impul-sor_, where the verb in question is _impello -ere_ and the _-tor_ appears as _-sor_. Now, the expected feminine version is _impultrix_ (_impul-trix_), but since _s_ always appears before _-trix_ in feminine words that have masculine counterparts in _-sor_ (e.g. _defensor_/_defenstrix_ and _possessor_/_possestrix_ and _tonsor_/tonstrix), a compound suffix _-strix_ was created, and so we have the actual word _impulstrix_ (_impul-s-trix_). Other words in _-sor_ that are formed like _impulsor_, such as _mansor_ (_man-sor_), ought to have their feminine forms created with that compound suffix: _manstrix_. This is convenient because then you won’t have to spend too much time figuring out whether a particular word in _-sor_ was created like _lusor_, _possessor_, or _impulsor_. _Crucifixor_ is for _crucifig-tor_, where the _gt_ became _cs_ and then _x_. This does not have a feminine form, but we know how the suffix _-trix_ interacts with the roots of verbs: _crucifig-trix_ → _crucific-trix_ → _crucifictrix_. Notice that, again, the consonant before the _-trix_ changed, but the _t_ in _trix_ did not. Other words in _-xor_ work in similar ways: _conexor_ (_conect-tor_ → _conecs-sor_ → _conec-sor_)/_conectrix_ (_conect-trix_ → _conec-trix_) and _fluxor_ (_flugv-tor_ → _flug-tor_ → _fluc-tor_ → _fluc-sor_)/_fluctrix_ (_flugv-trix_ → _flug-trix_ → _fluc-trix_). Traupman also understands this because he has the word _conectrum_ for “linker” (p. 261, Fourth Edition). The _trum_ suffix is like a neuter version of _-tor_ and _-trix_, and works like _-trix_ (in the sense that the _t_ does not change). The set of rules is basically this: If the base of the perfect participle of a verb ends in… - _t_, then replace _t_ with: _-tor_, _-trix_ - _s_, then replace _s_ with: _-sor_, _-strix_ - _ss_, then replace _ss_ with: _-ssor_, _-strix_ - _x_, then replace _x_ with: _-xor_, _-ctrix_ One other thing: I have seen the _-issa_ suffix used with the _-tor_ suffix: _professorissa_. I have also seen the regularly formed feminine version of _professor_: _profestrix_. > [@Carolus Raeticus](#): > > Generally speaking, is it allowable to use _-trix_ only in order to emphasise the feminine character and otherwise use the _-tor_ one (retaining feminine gender, of course), e.g. _praesentator, -oris f._ I suppose one could use _praesentator_ to refer to a female person, but then it would be in cases where the gender, for whatever reason, is not thought of as relevant. But the _-tor_ and _-trix_ are very much gender-specific more often than not (if not almost all the time), and so I recommend that you use one or the other depending on the gender in question. Valete. ---
**Author:** ![Carolus\_Raeticus](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Carolus\_Raeticus](https://www.textkit.com/u/Carolus_Raeticus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/modern-professions-problems-with-a-few-male-female-versions/11872/6 "2014-03-30T18:36:39Z")
Salve Diaphane! Thank you for the comprehensive answer. I have to give it some more thought, though. Certainly not an easy topic. It’s quite easy to create a _barbarism_. Ut valeas, Carolus Raeticus