The Etymology of "Relationary"
I have geeked out. Please forgive me. Unqualified, I recklessly thought I would have a go and do some online research into the origins of “relationary”. Here is what I discovered:
The Short Explanation
- Latin referre “to bring back” gives us relatus—“brought back”—the root of “relate”, “relation” and ultimately “relationary”.
- Latin verbs mix and match roots, just like “go” and “went” in English, which makes for one big smoothie of ancient words, blended into the language we speak today.
- To illustrate, the frequentative relatare adds a storytelling tone, shaping how we use the word “relate”.
- And when we say we are “in a relationship” with someone or “I can relate to him or her”, we are using those words in ways that have only been around since the middle of the twentieth century.
An Overview from Latin to Modern English
| Latin Form | Type | Meaning | Influence on English |
|---|---|---|---|
| referre | Verb (infinitive) | to bring back | Root verb for the whole family |
| relatus | Past participle | brought back | Structural root of relate, relation |
| relatare | Frequentative verb | to recount again and again | Secondary influence but still discernible in the storytelling tone of to relate |
relatio [nom.]
| Noun (a report) | a bringing back, a report | Source of relation, relationship and relationary |
To Refer (in English)
The English word “to refer” comes from Latin referre, meaning “to carry back” or “report”. It passed into Old French as referer, retaining that core sense of directing attention or authority back to something. After the Norman Conquest, it entered Anglo-Norman and made its way into Middle English by the 14th century as referren—used in legal, academic, and ecclesiastical settings. Eventually standardised in modern English as “to refer”, its past tense “referred” keeps the double “r” due to English spelling rules.
So, quite remarkably in many ways, “referred” has retained its original sense of bringing something back, whether that is attention, authority, responsibility, or information—making it etymologically consistent and surprisingly stable over 2,000+ years.
But I only mention that for the sake of completeness. The other branch of the word family via Latin relatio / relationem is more significant for our present purposes. We will return to the question as to why there are these two branches at the end of the post.
Latin Origin
The Latin term relatio originates from the verb referre, meaning “to bring back” or “to report”.
In ancient Roman contexts, relatio had several nuanced meanings:
- Laying a matter before the Senate: a formal motion or proposal presented for deliberation.
- Referring a case back to a magistrate: the act of returning a legal matter to a judicial authority for further consideration.
- Reference to a standard: invoking a benchmark or precedent in decision-making.
- Retorting to an accuser: responding to an accusation, possibly in a legal or rhetorical context.
- Giving an oath in reply: offering a sworn statement as a response.
- Repayment: returning something owed or due.
- Additionally, relatio encompassed meanings like “narration” or “recital”, indicating the act of telling or relating events.
These varied uses reflect its broad application in Roman legal, rhetorical, and administrative practices.
The key idea seems to be that a relatio was something that was brought back. It was a report or a carry-back, you might say.
Further Developments Over Time
Now below is a summary of how I understand we arrived at our related English words, notably “relationary”.
The Old French relacion (and Its Role)
- Word: Middle English relacion, relacioun, from Anglo-Norman relacioun and Old French relacion
- Date: Old French relacion (Old French was the language spoken in most of the northern half of France approximately between the late 8th and mid-14th centuries)
- Meaning:
- A report or account (recounting something to someone)
- A connection or link between things or people
- Source: Directly from Latin relatio / relationem, meaning “a bringing back,” “a report,” or “a reference”.
- Further Note: This word preserved the Latin double meaning—report and connection. It presumably entered English via Norman influence post-1066, becoming relation in Middle English by the late 14th century (first attested c. 1390).
English Words That Emerged from This
Relation (1)
- Earliest Use (n.): Circa 1390
- Meaning: A connection or association between people, concepts, or things; a narrative or account
- Etymology: Derived from Latin relatio [singular, nominative form] and relationem [singular, accusative form of the same noun] via Old French relacion, meaning “a bringing back” or “a report”.
Relation (2)
- Earliest Use (n.): attested from c. 1500
- Meaning: a “person related by blood or marriage” — that is, a relative
- Derived from Latin relatio and relationem as above
- Observation: The first word in our cluster that starts to major on what we would call a personal relationship?
Relate
- Earliest Use (v.): from 1490 onwards
- Meaning: To narrate or recount; to establish a logical or causal connection between things
- Etymology: From Latin relatus, past participle of referre (“to bring back”), combining re- (“back”) and ferre (“to carry”).
- Further Note: According to Etymonline, the second sense of “relate”—as in “to feel connected or sympathetic to”—is first attested from 1950, originally in psychology jargon.
Relational
- Earliest Use (adj. & n.): from 1657 onwards
- Meaning: Pertaining to or characterised by relations (i.e. in relation to people, things and ideas)
- Etymology: Formed by adding the adjective-forming suffix -al to relation.
Relationship
- Earliest Use (n.): from 1724
- Meaning: The state or condition of being connected
- Etymology: Formed by combining relation with the suffix -ship, indicating a state or condition.
- Further Note: The specific application of “relationship” to romantic or sexual intimacy is recorded by 1944, according to Etymonline.
Relationary
- Earliest Use: from 1810
- Meaning: A rare term in modern English referring to someone or something involving relationships.
- Etymology: Constructed by adding the suffix -ary to relation, indicating a person or thing related to a specific function, person or thing.
And that will probably do unless you fancy some further background details. In that case…
Health Warning: Some Latin and Proto-Indo-European Coming Up!
First the easy bit.
Latin, as I understand, had a frequentative form of referre, which added a storytelling flavour:
relatare – to bring back again and again; to recount repeatedly.
It would appear that frequentative verbs in Latin express repeated or habitual action. So, relatare did not just mean to “bring back”—it meant to retell, recount, or narrate. It is the Latin version of someone going, “Let me tell you this story… again!”.
While the Latin relatus gives us the core meaning of “brought back,” relatare is what helped shape the English word “relate” in its storytelling sense:
“He related what had happened”.
Hence, when we say “to relate” as in “to narrate,” it is that flavor of relatare—recounting something in detail—which has left a trace in English.
So, Basically...
This is how you might sum it all up:
Imagine you are a Roman messenger, sweaty from the road, bursting into the governor’s office with a scroll in hand. You are there with a relatio—not a pizza order, but a report. In Latin, relatio literally means a “carrying back”. You are lugging a bundle of info—people, events, places—all tangled together in one much-awaited dispatch. That is your job: to carry it back to someone important.
But here is where it gets interesting. It is not just what you are carrying (the bundle of important stuff) that matters—it is that you are carrying it back to someone.
That makes two levels of connection:
1. The content—a bundle of connections.
2. The act—connecting two people through the very act of reporting.
Fast forward a couple of millennia, and that humble Roman post-run gives birth to a whole English word family: relation, relate, relationship, relational and, of course, relationary. They all revolve around connectedness.
But Why Not Referred Instead of Relatus?
Since the main verb behind all these related words is referre, you might think the English word “referred” would be the core root. But that is not the case. True, the Latin verb referre consists of these two parts:
- re– (“back”)
- ferre (“to carry”)
However, somewhat confusingly for us English speakers, the past participle of Latin ferre is not ferred—it is latus. So, yes indeed, we do end up with:
re- + latus = relatus
Meaning “brought back”.
Some Latin Grammar
To explain, Latin verbs come with four principal parts—the core forms used to create all other tenses and derivatives. For the verb referre (meaning “to bring back”), they are:
- referre – to bring back
- refero – I bring back
- rettuli – I brought back
- relatus – brought back (past participle)
Obviously, that fourth form, relatus, is the important one in the present context.
Why This Matters
Long story short, it is precisely because the Latin verb—ferre—uses those different ancient roots for its tenses that this issue arises. And for once let’s be fair to the poor old Romans, English does this too:
Go (present) vs. Went (past) — totally different roots, but the same verb.
Two Different Ancestor Words
Now to explain the difference: rettuli (past tense of ferre “ I carried”/ “I brought back”) and latus (past participle: “brought back”) come from completely different proto-Indo-European ancestor words.
See, I promised you some Proto-Indo European…
- Ferre comes from a Proto-Indo European root bher- (“to carry”).
- Tuli and latus are derived from a different Proto-Indo European root, usually reconstructed as telh₂- or tolh₂-, which also means something like “to bear, lift, carry”.
Reconstructed according to the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), you get: /tel.hɑ́ː/ [probably pronounced “TEL-ha” with a soft, deep “ha” at the end]. The exact sound of the “laryngeal” h₂ is debated, but [ha] is the most widely accepted approximation.
Latinised, we could therefore speculatively transcribe (telh₂-) together with a Latin-sounding suffix -us as tlātus (pronounced something like tlah-toos)… And, if you said “tlah-toos” really fast repeatedly, it might start to sound like “latus” after a while.
What Were the Romans Thinking?
In other words, I am postulating that Latin speakers just made our core word easier to say by simplifying the whole term tlātus into latus (meaning “brought back”). Now just add the prefix re- and, hey presto, you get relatus on its merry way to becoming “relation”, “relational” and “relationary” in English many centuries later.
As charming as this theory is, and its basic logic appears to be sound, I gather the actual pathway of our structural root was probably a bit bumpier – more like this:
From the Proto-Indian root *telh₂- → via Proto-Indo-European *tl̥h₂tós → via Proto-Italic *tlātos → and *tlātus → to Latin lātus.
As clear as mud? I hope not.
Anyway, I had fun.