As anyone who took a bit of Latin knows, "bos" is the Latin word for cow, and we hear it still in cattle we call "Bossie" or the like. How is it that we use the term, "cow" in reference to bovine (There's "bos" again in its object form) animals by another non-Latin term? Also, whence comes the French/Spanish Vache/Vaca? They're Latin-based languages, so why this term?

According to Online Etymology Dictionary "cow" came from a PIE root *gwous via Proto Germanic. Apparently, in Germanic, it is used for females only, whereas in other languages it is used for both. Hence our "cow" and "bull".

Latin bos and English cow are both related to one another from PIE *gwous. Three are many words in the Romance languages that depart from Classical Latin vocabulary and replace it with either slang or borrowings from other languages. for example, Latin caput, capitis, was almost universily replaced in the Romance languages by the Roman soldier slang testa 'a kind of pot'. (Although traces exist, such as French chef 'head person'.) OTOH, Latin, as most languages, sometimes has multiple words for what in English a single words. So, Latin vacca 'cow (used for plowing)' bos 'ox, bull', junix 'calf, heifer', vitula 'calf' (whence our veal via French). (There is a possible folk etymology in Roman literature that the name of the peninsula that Rome is situated on was called Italia came from vitulus.) Actually, English has many words for cows, too: cow, bull, steer, ox, calf, heifer, etc. Words for animals that do not have separate forms for the male and female adults of the species are known as epicene in Latin grammar.

Thanks. What brought this up is the name on a chainsaw. (Yes, really!) Stihl has a trademark, "Farm Boss" on some saws. When one "s" wears off of the chain bar, it leaves, "Farm Bos." My strange mind finds this amusing.

quote:

OTOH, Latin, as most languages, sometimes has multiple words for what in English a single words.

Does Latin have significantly more words than English does because of this? Or is it that sometimes Latin has lots of words for one of our words, but other times we have lots of words for Latin words?

Does Latin have significantly more words than English does because of this?

Well, since nobody has yet counted the words in English, it'd be hard to compare. And, Latin is a dead language with a fixed vocabulary. There is a fixed corpus of texts and counting the lexical items has been done.

Or is it that sometimes Latin has lots of words for one of our words, but other times we have lots of words for Latin words?

I was suggesting that Latin, like English, and other languages sometimes has more words for a concept than that is expressed with one word in other languages, and vice versa. I was just reacting to the idea that Latin had one word for cows.