Terminationes et Genera Verborum Substantivorum Diminutivorum et Verborum Primitivorum
"Terminationes et Genera Verborum Substantivorum Diminutivorum et Verborum Primitivorum"
"The Terminations and Genders of Diminutive Substantives and Primitives"
One of the things that has been on my mind lately is the issue of the terminations and genders of diminutive substantives that derive from their primitives. Concerning the gender of the diminutive substantives, the answer seems simple enough. Various Latin grammars give that information quite plainly:
Diminutive Adjectives are usually confined to one gender, that of the primitive, and are used as Diminutive Nouns.
- Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar;
Diminutives regularly take the gender of the nouns from which they are derived...
- Benjamin Leonard D'Ooge's Concise Latin Grammar;
Note.-Diminutives have, as a rule, the gender of their primitives. Exceptions are sometimes due to difference in signifcation.
- Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar;
NOTE 1.-It will be observed that in gender the Diminutives follow the gender of the words from which they are derived.
- Charles E. Bennett's A Latin Grammar;
The gender of the primitive word is generally retained in the diminutive.
- Paul R. Jenks's A Manual of Latin Word Formation;
Latin diminutives, unlike the Greek in -ιον, regularly retained the gender of the simple noun;
- Frédéric T. Cooper's Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius;
Latin diminutives receive the same gender as the base-word...
- Jacob Wackernagel's, David Langslow's Lectures on Syntax;
The Diminutive retains the Gender of the simple Noun, unlike Greek Diminutives in -ιον, which are Neuter...
- W. M. Lindsay's The Latin Language;
EACH of the diminutive nouns generally takes a termination of that gender of which the noun itself is, from which it is formed;
- John Smith's The New Hampshire Latin Grammar;
Diminutives for the most part end in lus, la, lum, are generally of the same gender with their primitives.
- Alexander Adam's The Rudiments of Latin and English Grammar.
There is then general agreement that a diminutive substantive regularly is masculine, feminine, or neuter because its primitive was masculine, feminine, or neuter. The gender of the diminutive is determined by the primitive.
Unfortunately, Latin grammars do not indicate whether diminutives ending in -us are necessarily masculine, those ending in -a are necessarily feminine, and those ending in -um are necessarily neuter. The closest that we get for an indication is what Smith says, but since -a can be a termination of the masculine gender (e.g. advena), and -us can be a termination of the feminine gender (e.g. humus), there is still no particular termination associated with a particular gender for diminutives.
So, essentially, the questions that I want to have answered are: "For diminutives, is -us the definitive masculine termination while the other two are, respectively, the definitive feminine and neuter terminations?" Do diminutives follow such a rigid gender-to-termination assignment? Does a diminutive necessarily end in -us when the primitive is masculine, and so on?
The Relationship Between the Primitives and the Diminutive
When I reconsider the implied reasoning behind the rule that diminutives regularly have the same gender as their primitives, and then tangentially take into consideration particular examples of a diminutive noun that does not follow gender-to-termination assignment (i.e. masculine scurrula and vernula from the masculine scurra and verna, respectively), I have to say that, no, diminutive substantives do not have to follow such a gender-to-termination assignment.
The rule stating that the retention of the gender from the primitive substantive to its respective diminutive tells us something important about the nature of the formation of diminutive words. In the formation of a Latin diminutive substantive from its primitive, it is the latter that imparts the details of word-specific grammatical information onto the form of the diminutive substantive. What ends up happening is that the diminutive regularly retains the primitive's grammatical details as much as possible. The grammatical information that the diminutive substantive ends up with derives from the primitive, not from any kind of pre-assigned or non-word-specific grammatical details associated with the diminutive-forming suffixes (-ulus, -culus, et cetera). So, basically, word-specific details prevail over non-word-specific details whenever there is common ground between the primitive and the diminutive.
In many cases, the word-specific details from the primitive (i.e. the gender, number, declension, and termination) match up perfectly with the non-word-specific details of the diminutive-forming suffixes. In such cases, the diminutives take the terminations of their primitives because the two words have common terminations (i.e. -us, -a, -um in the singular, or -i, -ae, -a in the plural). The primitive imparts the grammatical information by making it so that the terminations of the diminutives and their corresponding gender assignment are defined by the primitives. Once these diminutives have been formed, they resemble their primitives in terms of gender and termination, but they differ only in the addition of a letter or combination of letters in a non-final position (e.g. -ul-).
We can see the similarities (in terms of gender, termination, and the diminutive base form -ul-) in this chart:
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
equus
Masculine
equulus
Masculine
equa
Feminine
equula
Feminine
rapum
Neuter
rapulum
Neuter
In every case, the primitive-diminutive pairs not only match in terms of gender, but also in terms of termination. There is a regular correlation between these details of grammatical information. Consequently, when we explain the use of the particular terminations used in words formed in this way, we have two equally appropriate ways to do so: 1) The non-word-specific details of the diminutive-forming suffixes (i.e. -us is at the end of a masculine word by default, -a is at the end of a feminine word by default, and -um is at the end of a neuter word by default), and 2) The word-specific details from the primitive are taken up by the diminutive.
The Default Termination-to-Gender Assignment
When a diminutive and its primitive do not have common terminations, the primitive by nature cannot impart termination-related information onto the form of the diminutive. In such cases, the word-specific details from the primitive that pertain to terminations no longer become applicable, and the formation of the diminutive falls back on the non-word-specific details of the diminutive-forming suffixes. Then the diminutive takes the default termination-to-gender assignment, where -us is used at the end of a masculine noun, -a is used at the end of a feminine one, and -um is used at the end of a neuter one. This assigment derives from the use of the three terminations in adjectives. Just like the terminations of the three-termination adjectives of the first and second declensions, the terminations of diminutives of this type are absolved from any word-specific gender and termination correlation as seen in the diminutive-primitive pairs mentioned above. Diminutives formed this way are very much like adjectives of the aforementioned type. They can no more use the termination-related grammatical details of their primitives than those adjectives can use the termination-related grammatical details of their own substantive primitives. So:
Primitive
Diminutive
Gender
Of Both
Diminutive
Declines Like
flos
flosculus
Masculine
floreus
liber
libellus
Masculine
librarius
vultus
vulticulus
Masculine
vultuosus
plebes
plebecula
Feminine
plebeia
manus
manicula
Feminine
manuata
mater
matercula
Feminine
materna
cornu
corniculum
Neuter
cornuatum
corpus
corpusculum
Neuter
corporeum
os
ossiculum
Neuter
osseum
In any case, whether there be either a word-specific correlation of the gender and termination (as in equulus) or a default termination-to-gender assignment (as in flosculus), the grammatical information assigned to the terminations of a diminutive substantive does not regularly trump the applicable grammatical information of the primitive, since the primitive is the source of that information. In other words, the grammatical nature of the diminutive terminations is regularly subordinate to, or congruent with, the grammatical nature of the primitive, not the other way around, and so when there is commonality, the non-word-specific default termination-to-gender assignment never regularly overpowers the word-specific nature of the primitive.
The appeal to the default termination-to-gender assignment is what is invoked when no termination-related commonality can be found, and even then, that assignment depends on the nature of the primitive. Conversely, there is nothing about the terminations of the diminutive suffixes that makes, for instance, the -a termination the definitive "feminine ending" without regard to the grammatical nature of the primitive. That -a may become a "feminine ending" if the nature of the primitive allows it to be so, or if it falls back on the default termination-to-gender assigment.
What this means is that just as we do not randomly pick a gender for the diminutive substantive just because the terminations -us, -a, -um have a non-word-specific default termination-to-gender assignment, we do not randomly pick a termination for it, either, just because the terminations -us, -a, -um have a non-word-specific default termination-to-gender assignment.
The Word-Specific Termination-to-Gender Assignment
The non-random selection of the termination and the gender is the reason that from the primitive scurr-a (masculine) there is the diminutive scurr-ul-a (masculine), and from vern-a (masculine) there is the diminutive vern-ul-a (masculine). Scurra and vernula are masculine words of the first declension, with the termination -a. The diminutive forms take -a, and not -us, because the primitives and the diminutives have common terminations, and the -a termination and the masculine gender were defined by the primitives.
The analogy is clear when common terminations and genders are matched between the primitive and the diminutive:
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
equus
Masculine
equulus
Masculine
equa
Feminine
equula
Feminine
rapum
Neuter
rapulum
Neuter
scurra
Masculine
[X]
Masculine
verna
Masculine
[Y]
Masculine
Where [X] = scurrula, not scurrulus, and [Y] = vernula, not vernulus.
What makes these diminutives all like each other is that the possible commonality of terminations is maintained, just as the commonality of gender is maintained.
If the termination -us were used for a diminutive for scurra, it would be an instance of where the grammatical information defaultly assigned to the terminations of a diminutive substantive does trump the applicable grammatical information of the primitive, and yet such a procedure has never been regularly practiced. In terms of the reasoning behind the formation of diminutives from primitive substantives, scurrula has more in common with equulus, equula, and rapulum than scurrulus does, since the former four words take into consideration the nature of their primitives as much as possible, while the latter one much less so.
And so, we should expect formations like these:
Primitives and Diminutives in -a
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
advena
Masculine
advenula
Masculine
agricola
Masculine
agricolula
Masculine
auriga
Masculine
aurigula
Masculine
incola
Masculine
incolula
Masculine
perfuga
Masculine
perfugula
Masculine
pirata
Masculine
piratula
Masculine
poeta
Masculine
poetula
Masculine
ruricola
Neuter
ruricolula
Neuter
scriba
Masculine
scribula
Masculine
Nota bene: ruricola is a one-termination adjective of all three genders (adj. gen. omn., i.e., adiectivum generis omnium), and in the example above, it is being used as a neuter substantive.
Primitives and Diminutives in -us
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
alvus
Feminine
alvulus
Feminine
arctus
Feminine
arctulus
Feminine
carbasus
Feminine
carbasulus
Feminine
cetus
Neuter
cetulus
Neuter
colus
Feminine
colulus
Feminine
fragus
Feminine
fragulus
Feminine
fraxinus
Feminine
fraxinulus
Feminine
humus
Feminine
humulus
Feminine
methodus
Feminine
methodulus
Feminine
Nerthus
Feminine
Nerthulus
Feminine
pinus
Feminine
pinulus
Feminine
Samus
Feminine
Samulus
Feminine
vannus
Feminine
vannulus
Feminine
virus
Neuter
virulus
Neuter
vulgus
Neuter
vulgulus
Neuter
Primitives and Diminutives in -um
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
Dorcium
Feminine
Dorciolum
Feminine
Glycerium
Feminine
Glyceriolum
Feminine
Leontium
Feminine
Leontiolum
Feminine
Paegnium
Masculine
Paegniolum
Masculine
Phanium
Feminine
Phaniolum
Feminine
(The last five are Greek-derived names that are morphologically neuter (neuter in form), but are masculine or feminine by significance (referring to male or female beings), hence the designation of "masculine" or "feminine.")
The Rationale
I should point out that I am not basing my entire argument on just the words scurrula and vernula. Instead, I am considering the reasoning behind taking the grammatical nature of primitives into account when forming diminutives, and then citing examples that are congruent with that reasoning, including particular examples (scurrula and vernula) that make that reasoning especially clear.
The Oddity of Ficus and Its Diminutive
There is one particular pair of primitive-diminutive words that seems to muddy up the waters. From ficus there is ficulus according to the regular procedure, but there is also the form ficula. But not only does the gender of ficus vary between masculine and feminine, its declension varies between the second and fourth. Either way, ficula is unusual because it is actually an instance of where the grammatical information defaultly assigned to the terminations of a diminutive substantive does indeed trump the applicable grammatical information of the primitive. In the formation of ficula, the -us termination defined by the primitive ficus is eschewed in favor of -a. Such a procedure is not common.
There seems to be some dispute about whether the diminutive form should be ficulus or ficula, and whether they should be masculine or feminine. The form that actually appears in writing is ficulis (ablative plural), which could be either masculine and feminine, and the termination could be either -us or -a, and so later scholars had to solve the problem of whether the nominative singular form should be ficulus or ficula. The scholars who think the word is masculine probably assumed that the diminutive should be ficulus, while those who think that the word is feminine probably assumed the diminutive should be ficula. Both of these rationalizations were based on the assumption that masculine diminutives end in -us and feminine diminutives end in -a, since -us is the default masculine termination while -a is the default feminine termination. But this is the very assumption that I am calling into question. As I have pointed out, the grammatical information defaultly assigned to the terminations of a diminutive substantive does not regularly trump the applicable grammatical information of the primitive. Moreover, ficulus, the regular formation (assuming we are using the second-declension form of ficus), could still be either masculine or feminine, even with the -us termination. This means that even if we could determine that ficulus is the proper nominative form, that would not necessarily tell us that it is, indeed, masculine instead of feminine.
In any case, I think that while ficulus/ficula does seem to muddy up the waters, the word ficus already has muddied up the waters in the first place. Moreover, it is hardly surprising to see an unusual form (ficula) created from such an unusual word (ficus). Personally, I think the ficulis is pointing toward a feminine ficulus (defined by the usual grammatical nature of the feminine ficus), not a ficula (of either gender), and I am basing that on what I pointed out about the nature of grammatical information between primitive-diminutive pairs. I am going to put ficulus/ficula aside because of its ambiguity. On one hand, the diminutive could be ficula (either gender) and that would be an instance in which the gender-to-termination assignment of the primitive is ignored in favor of the default one. On the other hand, the diminutive could just as easily be ficulus (feminine), and that would be an example of the usual procedure.
Other Oddities
Other examples of diminutives created by having the non-word-specific default termination-to-gender assignment overpower the word-specific nature of the primitive can exist, but I think they do so because their creators did not catch the common-termination-related subtleties of the formation of diminutive words. Even some diminutives that have been formed in the procedure that I have described above apparently are subject to changes in gender and termination. Verna (masculine) has the diminutive vernula (masculine), formed regularly, but there is also the vernacular diminutive vernulus. Mosa (masculine) has Mosella, but its gender is either masculine or feminine. There is also the form Mosula, which is feminine. In that case, it is the gender that changed, not the termination.
Conclusion: The Diminutive Tries to Emulate the Primitive as Much as Possible
Nevertheless, even when we take into consideration these irregular changes of gender and termination, it is clear that, regularly, the primacy of the grammatical information of the primitive is the deciding factor of the grammatical nature of the diminutive whenever it is applicable, and the default termination-to-gender assignment is used when the grammatical nature of the primitive is not applicable.
"The Terminations and Genders of Diminutive Substantives and Primitives"
One of the things that has been on my mind lately is the issue of the terminations and genders of diminutive substantives that derive from their primitives. Concerning the gender of the diminutive substantives, the answer seems simple enough. Various Latin grammars give that information quite plainly:
Diminutive Adjectives are usually confined to one gender, that of the primitive, and are used as Diminutive Nouns.
- Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar;
Diminutives regularly take the gender of the nouns from which they are derived...
- Benjamin Leonard D'Ooge's Concise Latin Grammar;
Note.-Diminutives have, as a rule, the gender of their primitives. Exceptions are sometimes due to difference in signifcation.
- Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar;
NOTE 1.-It will be observed that in gender the Diminutives follow the gender of the words from which they are derived.
- Charles E. Bennett's A Latin Grammar;
The gender of the primitive word is generally retained in the diminutive.
- Paul R. Jenks's A Manual of Latin Word Formation;
Latin diminutives, unlike the Greek in -ιον, regularly retained the gender of the simple noun;
- Frédéric T. Cooper's Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius;
Latin diminutives receive the same gender as the base-word...
- Jacob Wackernagel's, David Langslow's Lectures on Syntax;
The Diminutive retains the Gender of the simple Noun, unlike Greek Diminutives in -ιον, which are Neuter...
- W. M. Lindsay's The Latin Language;
EACH of the diminutive nouns generally takes a termination of that gender of which the noun itself is, from which it is formed;
- John Smith's The New Hampshire Latin Grammar;
Diminutives for the most part end in lus, la, lum, are generally of the same gender with their primitives.
- Alexander Adam's The Rudiments of Latin and English Grammar.
There is then general agreement that a diminutive substantive regularly is masculine, feminine, or neuter because its primitive was masculine, feminine, or neuter. The gender of the diminutive is determined by the primitive.
Unfortunately, Latin grammars do not indicate whether diminutives ending in -us are necessarily masculine, those ending in -a are necessarily feminine, and those ending in -um are necessarily neuter. The closest that we get for an indication is what Smith says, but since -a can be a termination of the masculine gender (e.g. advena), and -us can be a termination of the feminine gender (e.g. humus), there is still no particular termination associated with a particular gender for diminutives.
So, essentially, the questions that I want to have answered are: "For diminutives, is -us the definitive masculine termination while the other two are, respectively, the definitive feminine and neuter terminations?" Do diminutives follow such a rigid gender-to-termination assignment? Does a diminutive necessarily end in -us when the primitive is masculine, and so on?
The Relationship Between the Primitives and the Diminutive
When I reconsider the implied reasoning behind the rule that diminutives regularly have the same gender as their primitives, and then tangentially take into consideration particular examples of a diminutive noun that does not follow gender-to-termination assignment (i.e. masculine scurrula and vernula from the masculine scurra and verna, respectively), I have to say that, no, diminutive substantives do not have to follow such a gender-to-termination assignment.
The rule stating that the retention of the gender from the primitive substantive to its respective diminutive tells us something important about the nature of the formation of diminutive words. In the formation of a Latin diminutive substantive from its primitive, it is the latter that imparts the details of word-specific grammatical information onto the form of the diminutive substantive. What ends up happening is that the diminutive regularly retains the primitive's grammatical details as much as possible. The grammatical information that the diminutive substantive ends up with derives from the primitive, not from any kind of pre-assigned or non-word-specific grammatical details associated with the diminutive-forming suffixes (-ulus, -culus, et cetera). So, basically, word-specific details prevail over non-word-specific details whenever there is common ground between the primitive and the diminutive.
In many cases, the word-specific details from the primitive (i.e. the gender, number, declension, and termination) match up perfectly with the non-word-specific details of the diminutive-forming suffixes. In such cases, the diminutives take the terminations of their primitives because the two words have common terminations (i.e. -us, -a, -um in the singular, or -i, -ae, -a in the plural). The primitive imparts the grammatical information by making it so that the terminations of the diminutives and their corresponding gender assignment are defined by the primitives. Once these diminutives have been formed, they resemble their primitives in terms of gender and termination, but they differ only in the addition of a letter or combination of letters in a non-final position (e.g. -ul-).
We can see the similarities (in terms of gender, termination, and the diminutive base form -ul-) in this chart:
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
equus
Masculine
equulus
Masculine
equa
Feminine
equula
Feminine
rapum
Neuter
rapulum
Neuter
In every case, the primitive-diminutive pairs not only match in terms of gender, but also in terms of termination. There is a regular correlation between these details of grammatical information. Consequently, when we explain the use of the particular terminations used in words formed in this way, we have two equally appropriate ways to do so: 1) The non-word-specific details of the diminutive-forming suffixes (i.e. -us is at the end of a masculine word by default, -a is at the end of a feminine word by default, and -um is at the end of a neuter word by default), and 2) The word-specific details from the primitive are taken up by the diminutive.
The Default Termination-to-Gender Assignment
When a diminutive and its primitive do not have common terminations, the primitive by nature cannot impart termination-related information onto the form of the diminutive. In such cases, the word-specific details from the primitive that pertain to terminations no longer become applicable, and the formation of the diminutive falls back on the non-word-specific details of the diminutive-forming suffixes. Then the diminutive takes the default termination-to-gender assignment, where -us is used at the end of a masculine noun, -a is used at the end of a feminine one, and -um is used at the end of a neuter one. This assigment derives from the use of the three terminations in adjectives. Just like the terminations of the three-termination adjectives of the first and second declensions, the terminations of diminutives of this type are absolved from any word-specific gender and termination correlation as seen in the diminutive-primitive pairs mentioned above. Diminutives formed this way are very much like adjectives of the aforementioned type. They can no more use the termination-related grammatical details of their primitives than those adjectives can use the termination-related grammatical details of their own substantive primitives. So:
Primitive
Diminutive
Gender
Of Both
Diminutive
Declines Like
flos
flosculus
Masculine
floreus
liber
libellus
Masculine
librarius
vultus
vulticulus
Masculine
vultuosus
plebes
plebecula
Feminine
plebeia
manus
manicula
Feminine
manuata
mater
matercula
Feminine
materna
cornu
corniculum
Neuter
cornuatum
corpus
corpusculum
Neuter
corporeum
os
ossiculum
Neuter
osseum
In any case, whether there be either a word-specific correlation of the gender and termination (as in equulus) or a default termination-to-gender assignment (as in flosculus), the grammatical information assigned to the terminations of a diminutive substantive does not regularly trump the applicable grammatical information of the primitive, since the primitive is the source of that information. In other words, the grammatical nature of the diminutive terminations is regularly subordinate to, or congruent with, the grammatical nature of the primitive, not the other way around, and so when there is commonality, the non-word-specific default termination-to-gender assignment never regularly overpowers the word-specific nature of the primitive.
The appeal to the default termination-to-gender assignment is what is invoked when no termination-related commonality can be found, and even then, that assignment depends on the nature of the primitive. Conversely, there is nothing about the terminations of the diminutive suffixes that makes, for instance, the -a termination the definitive "feminine ending" without regard to the grammatical nature of the primitive. That -a may become a "feminine ending" if the nature of the primitive allows it to be so, or if it falls back on the default termination-to-gender assigment.
What this means is that just as we do not randomly pick a gender for the diminutive substantive just because the terminations -us, -a, -um have a non-word-specific default termination-to-gender assignment, we do not randomly pick a termination for it, either, just because the terminations -us, -a, -um have a non-word-specific default termination-to-gender assignment.
The Word-Specific Termination-to-Gender Assignment
The non-random selection of the termination and the gender is the reason that from the primitive scurr-a (masculine) there is the diminutive scurr-ul-a (masculine), and from vern-a (masculine) there is the diminutive vern-ul-a (masculine). Scurra and vernula are masculine words of the first declension, with the termination -a. The diminutive forms take -a, and not -us, because the primitives and the diminutives have common terminations, and the -a termination and the masculine gender were defined by the primitives.
The analogy is clear when common terminations and genders are matched between the primitive and the diminutive:
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
equus
Masculine
equulus
Masculine
equa
Feminine
equula
Feminine
rapum
Neuter
rapulum
Neuter
scurra
Masculine
[X]
Masculine
verna
Masculine
[Y]
Masculine
Where [X] = scurrula, not scurrulus, and [Y] = vernula, not vernulus.
What makes these diminutives all like each other is that the possible commonality of terminations is maintained, just as the commonality of gender is maintained.
If the termination -us were used for a diminutive for scurra, it would be an instance of where the grammatical information defaultly assigned to the terminations of a diminutive substantive does trump the applicable grammatical information of the primitive, and yet such a procedure has never been regularly practiced. In terms of the reasoning behind the formation of diminutives from primitive substantives, scurrula has more in common with equulus, equula, and rapulum than scurrulus does, since the former four words take into consideration the nature of their primitives as much as possible, while the latter one much less so.
And so, we should expect formations like these:
Primitives and Diminutives in -a
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
advena
Masculine
advenula
Masculine
agricola
Masculine
agricolula
Masculine
auriga
Masculine
aurigula
Masculine
incola
Masculine
incolula
Masculine
perfuga
Masculine
perfugula
Masculine
pirata
Masculine
piratula
Masculine
poeta
Masculine
poetula
Masculine
ruricola
Neuter
ruricolula
Neuter
scriba
Masculine
scribula
Masculine
Nota bene: ruricola is a one-termination adjective of all three genders (adj. gen. omn., i.e., adiectivum generis omnium), and in the example above, it is being used as a neuter substantive.
Primitives and Diminutives in -us
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
alvus
Feminine
alvulus
Feminine
arctus
Feminine
arctulus
Feminine
carbasus
Feminine
carbasulus
Feminine
cetus
Neuter
cetulus
Neuter
colus
Feminine
colulus
Feminine
fragus
Feminine
fragulus
Feminine
fraxinus
Feminine
fraxinulus
Feminine
humus
Feminine
humulus
Feminine
methodus
Feminine
methodulus
Feminine
Nerthus
Feminine
Nerthulus
Feminine
pinus
Feminine
pinulus
Feminine
Samus
Feminine
Samulus
Feminine
vannus
Feminine
vannulus
Feminine
virus
Neuter
virulus
Neuter
vulgus
Neuter
vulgulus
Neuter
Primitives and Diminutives in -um
Primitive
Diminutive
Form
Gender
Form
Gender
Dorcium
Feminine
Dorciolum
Feminine
Glycerium
Feminine
Glyceriolum
Feminine
Leontium
Feminine
Leontiolum
Feminine
Paegnium
Masculine
Paegniolum
Masculine
Phanium
Feminine
Phaniolum
Feminine
(The last five are Greek-derived names that are morphologically neuter (neuter in form), but are masculine or feminine by significance (referring to male or female beings), hence the designation of "masculine" or "feminine.")
The Rationale
I should point out that I am not basing my entire argument on just the words scurrula and vernula. Instead, I am considering the reasoning behind taking the grammatical nature of primitives into account when forming diminutives, and then citing examples that are congruent with that reasoning, including particular examples (scurrula and vernula) that make that reasoning especially clear.
The Oddity of Ficus and Its Diminutive
There is one particular pair of primitive-diminutive words that seems to muddy up the waters. From ficus there is ficulus according to the regular procedure, but there is also the form ficula. But not only does the gender of ficus vary between masculine and feminine, its declension varies between the second and fourth. Either way, ficula is unusual because it is actually an instance of where the grammatical information defaultly assigned to the terminations of a diminutive substantive does indeed trump the applicable grammatical information of the primitive. In the formation of ficula, the -us termination defined by the primitive ficus is eschewed in favor of -a. Such a procedure is not common.
There seems to be some dispute about whether the diminutive form should be ficulus or ficula, and whether they should be masculine or feminine. The form that actually appears in writing is ficulis (ablative plural), which could be either masculine and feminine, and the termination could be either -us or -a, and so later scholars had to solve the problem of whether the nominative singular form should be ficulus or ficula. The scholars who think the word is masculine probably assumed that the diminutive should be ficulus, while those who think that the word is feminine probably assumed the diminutive should be ficula. Both of these rationalizations were based on the assumption that masculine diminutives end in -us and feminine diminutives end in -a, since -us is the default masculine termination while -a is the default feminine termination. But this is the very assumption that I am calling into question. As I have pointed out, the grammatical information defaultly assigned to the terminations of a diminutive substantive does not regularly trump the applicable grammatical information of the primitive. Moreover, ficulus, the regular formation (assuming we are using the second-declension form of ficus), could still be either masculine or feminine, even with the -us termination. This means that even if we could determine that ficulus is the proper nominative form, that would not necessarily tell us that it is, indeed, masculine instead of feminine.
In any case, I think that while ficulus/ficula does seem to muddy up the waters, the word ficus already has muddied up the waters in the first place. Moreover, it is hardly surprising to see an unusual form (ficula) created from such an unusual word (ficus). Personally, I think the ficulis is pointing toward a feminine ficulus (defined by the usual grammatical nature of the feminine ficus), not a ficula (of either gender), and I am basing that on what I pointed out about the nature of grammatical information between primitive-diminutive pairs. I am going to put ficulus/ficula aside because of its ambiguity. On one hand, the diminutive could be ficula (either gender) and that would be an instance in which the gender-to-termination assignment of the primitive is ignored in favor of the default one. On the other hand, the diminutive could just as easily be ficulus (feminine), and that would be an example of the usual procedure.
Other Oddities
Other examples of diminutives created by having the non-word-specific default termination-to-gender assignment overpower the word-specific nature of the primitive can exist, but I think they do so because their creators did not catch the common-termination-related subtleties of the formation of diminutive words. Even some diminutives that have been formed in the procedure that I have described above apparently are subject to changes in gender and termination. Verna (masculine) has the diminutive vernula (masculine), formed regularly, but there is also the vernacular diminutive vernulus. Mosa (masculine) has Mosella, but its gender is either masculine or feminine. There is also the form Mosula, which is feminine. In that case, it is the gender that changed, not the termination.
Conclusion: The Diminutive Tries to Emulate the Primitive as Much as Possible
Nevertheless, even when we take into consideration these irregular changes of gender and termination, it is clear that, regularly, the primacy of the grammatical information of the primitive is the deciding factor of the grammatical nature of the diminutive whenever it is applicable, and the default termination-to-gender assignment is used when the grammatical nature of the primitive is not applicable.