What is the masculine form of "Aurifera" ?

I supposed it was "auriferus":

Tibicen auriferus is like a goldish beetle.


Well this word exists, it seems right.

But my dictionary starts this words as 'Aurifer, -a-um'. Aurifer, not auriferus

1 Answer 1


Yes, the correct form is aurifer, though in early Old Latin it would have been *auriferos (actually *ausiferos), as you'd expect.

For second-declension nouns with stems ending in r (original r, not rhotacised s), there was a rule in late Old Latin saying the ending -os of the nominative singular would be lost in certain cases (and if that meant the word ended in a consonant + r, an epenthetic -e- would be inserted). According to Michael Weiss' Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin, those cases are:

  1. If a consonant precedes -ros (Old Latin sakros > Classical Latin sacer 'sacred').
  2. If a vowel precedes -ros and the word is at least trisyllabic with a short penult (vesper 'evening' < *vesperos and līber 'free' < *loiberos, but ferus 'wild' and sincērus 'sound, whole').
  3. The word vir 'man', which may be analogical to puer 'boy', gener 'son-in-law, socer 'father-in-law'.

In all other cases, the -os is regularly preserved (and -os regularly became -us around the 3rd century BCE). Aurifer falls under the second case, and Tibicen auriferus got its name from a modern scientist who misapplied analogy.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.