English has a lot of words in which the suffix ‑ess makes a word feminine, such as actress, hostess, huntress.
That looks like a suffix that is also used frequently in Italian, so I’d guess it has Latin origins. Are those all the same suffix?
Heroine uses what seems to be a Germanic suffix. Are there any other instances of using a Germanic ‑ine suffix to make a feminine version of something in English, or is heroine unique in this?
Are both these ‑ess and ‑ine suffixes still productive in English, or can we only use premade forms that somebody else already coined?
Best Answer
Executive Summary/TL;DR: There are at least three different -ess suffixes involved here: one is for feminines of people and critters; one is to change adjectives into nouns of quality, the way English -ness does; and one that is used to create names of fabled or mythical lands.
Plus heroine for a female hero comes to us via Latin, not German, and the Latin is using the Greek ‑ine suffix. However, the homophonic word for the drug heroin did come to us via German.
Details follow.
First -ess suffix < Fr. -esse < L. -issa
The ‑ess that denotes female persons or animals derives from French ‑esse, from Common Romanic ‑essa from Late Latin ‑issa. Because it was in Common Romanic, it is no surprise that you should find it in Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese as well; for example, Spanish princesa and poetisa.
Adaptations of this form into English occurred at several stages of history, and not all prospered, as this entry from the OED shows:
As you see, the issue is complicated. Some of these ‑ess words came via French and often Latin before that, but others were formed independently. Even English actress was probably formed separately from French actrice (cf. Spanish actriz, both from Latin actrix, -ic-), although occasionally actrice is found in English instead of actress.
I would say that this ‑ess suffix is reasonably productive in English, at least insofar as that people would understand you if you coined something like jaguaress by analogy with lioness and leopardess. I wouldn’t try cheetess < cheetah though, because people might think you meant something deriving from a cheater.
Second -ess suffix < Fr. -esse < L. -itia
The second ‑ess suffix is one for changing adjectives into nouns. It is not a noun suffix like the first one.
Words like finesse, noblesse, politesse, tristesse are direct borrowings from French, where the suffix was not to make feminine nouns, but rather the same thing we use -ness for in English, so those correspond to fineness, nobleness (nobility), politeness, “*tristness” (sadness) using the normal English -ness suffix. The OED says of finesse in particular:
Words like tristesse are found in other Romance languages, like tristeza (sadness) in Spanish. I wouldn’t call it productive in English based on the OED saying that it scarcely occurs as a formative. I suppose you might get away with using them productively in English, provided you wanted to convey a snooty feel to it.
Third -ess suffix < Fr. -ois
The fourth ‑esse suffix is found in proper nouns like Lyonesse and Westernesse. Both were Middle English names used in medieval chivalric romances. This one corresponds to the modern French ‑ois suffix. Of the former, Wikipedia writes:
Presumably the formerly rare Westernesse was built by analogy on the same model as Lyonesse, but using western as a base. The name appears in King Horn, and was once rare. However, J.R.R. Tolkien adopted it as a Common Tongue translation of his Atlantis calque, Númenor. In his letter to Milton Waldman, published as #131 of his Letters, Tolkien writes:
And in Letter #275 to W.H. Auden, he spells this out more explicitly:
Subsequent to publication of The Lord of the Rings, the word Westernesse has appeared in print much more often than it did in the 19th century, where it was only in reference to discussion of King Horn. And Jack Vance took up Lyonesse and made it his own.
Probably because of Tolkien and Vance, more recent authors of fantasy (and of fantasy rôle-playing games) have used the ‑esse suffix for similar constructions to create their own mythical lands, so in this regard alone might it be said to be productive.
Epic Heroes and Heroines: -ine is Greek
Your supposition that heroine uses a Germanic suffix to form a feminine from hero turns out to be wrong. Yes, German has such a suffix (e.g. Königin queen < König king) but that is not what is going on here. Rather, heroine was but ‘recently’ adopted into English directly from the Latin, and thence from the Greek where it originated, as shown by the OED’s etymology entry for the word:
So ‑ine was a Greek suffix, and we got the Greek word via Latin.
Indeed, here are OED citations showing how heroina initially competed with heroine:
The OED entry on this form of -ine is:
The only relationship between ‑ine as a feminine and anything Germanic is the isolated word vixen, where the ‑en was added to make the female fox. The OED says of this form:
I can find no direct connection between Germanic ‑en for feminines and Greek ‑ine for the sames, but perhaps it exists further back toward PIE. The PIE gender situation is unclear; its feminine gender appears to have come into play a bit later. There seem to have been only masculine/animate vs neuter/inanimate originally.
In any event, I would not use ‑ine as a productive suffix for forming feminines in English if I were you; you’ll get more traction out of using ‑ess for that.