I wonder whether the following suffixes in fact the Latin borrowings?
-арь- as in вратарь, писарь, мытарь
-аль- as in брутальный, паяльный, читальный
Russian Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, teachers, and linguists wanting to discuss the finer points of the Russian language. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI wonder whether the following suffixes in fact the Latin borrowings?
-арь- as in вратарь, писарь, мытарь
-аль- as in брутальный, паяльный, читальный
ru.wikipedia agrees w.r.t. -арь, referencing Antoine Meillet Le slave commun:
*-arjь (суффикс профессии, отсюда рус. -арь) < прагерм. *-arjoz < лат. -arius
"Аль" is not a single suffix.
There are other meanings of the -л- suffix, but these don't seem to produce any -аль- combinations.
Despite that Vasmer in fact ignores the words with “-арь” suffix, the comparison of terms having that suffix drops hints about it‘s latin roots:
-ārius m (f. -āria, n. -ārium)
See: псарь, свинарь, виноградарь, ключарь, чеботарь, ложкарь, штукарь, плугарь, пушкарь, косарь, кобзарь, библиотекарь, аптекарь, почтарь, корчмарь, волгарь (and it‘s derivative «болгар[ин]»), главарь, бунтарь, пескарь, словарь, букварь.
The etymology of “-аль” is more vague. In “дуальный” and “натуральный” it’s definitely derived from Latin “duālis”/“nātūrālis”:
-ālis m, f (n. -āle)
But there is as well “москаль”, which looks like awry “москарь”. And there are “планетарный”, “легендарный” etc which have no affiliation with humans (as proper “-arius“ do.)
Since “р” and “л” sound quite similar, I would suggest that both those suffices are originated to their latin analogues, but nowadays some of they migrate from one to another according to common rules of russian language.