> BTW, the feminine version of a restaurateur was “restauratrice.”
That makes perfect sense, since the feminine agentive suffix in Latin is -rix. But I thought the feminine agentive ending in French was -euse! Where did we get "masseuse"?
Wiktionary suggests that -euse is an alternate equivalent of -rice, derived from Latin -osus (which has no agentive meaning at all; it means "full of [whatever]", and transformed into a French agentive suffix by people who felt that -eur and -euse must be related because they sound so similar.
Most verbs have a passive participial form that includes the -t-, but in some it's been swallowed by an S. The only example that comes to mind is missus [sent], the passive participle of mittere [send]. The modern French verb is apparently mettre. I guess if the agent nouns are formed from that root, they should be metteur and mettrice? But if they descend from Latin, the masculine form might not use -tt-.
I feel pretty safe in saying that "sender" would be missor in Latin - it's an attested (though "very rare") word - but I have no instinct for what the feminine form would be. Missrix just doesn't feel right.
You wish. I sure couldn't send my missus away at the drop of a hat.
___
ETA:
> Missrix just doesn't feel right.
I'm guessing they'd just (re?)insert the 't': "Misstrix" feels quite pronouncable.
I've heard at various times in my life the various feminine endings applied to same profession - people playing around with what sounds good or a generational thing. -esse -ice -enne -euse
There's also the debate in gendered languages over whether one should never use feminine endings on professions, and keep them generic, or always use them for all professions for consistency, avoiding suggesting certain professions are male vs female, while ensuring women are visible in professions where they used to be rarer.
This is a somewhat different kind of thing. In English, there are plenty of professions with a gendered suffix rather like this. Waiter / waitress; actor / actress; steward / stewardess.
In general, the -ess cannot be used for a word that doesn't already exist; the feminist prescription for a female doctor is "lady doctor", not "doctress". You might also note that the masculine versions of those three examples have three different "suffixes".
But the agentive suffix is always -er, whether the agent is male or female. Professions are conceptually different, and better modeled as opaque words than as stem+suffix combinations.
Being male I hesitate to speak for feminists, but I’m fairly sure at least 2nd wave ones would prefer just “doctor” and would frown on “lady” as an unnecessary qualifier.
WTF is that? And more importantly, can I get an armagnaqueur to keep me topped up?
Let's be a little cheeky and invent analogues. Try for example "color".
person that does coloring - colorer
thing that does coloring - colorant
Person that does adultering: adulterer Thing that does adultering: adulterant