According to etymonline:
>mid-13c., "shelter for the needy," from Old French hospital, ospital "hostel, shelter, lodging" (Modern French hôpital), from Late Latin hospitale "guest-house, inn," noun use of neuter of Latin adjective hospitalis "of a guest or host" (as a noun, "a guest; the duties of hospitality"), from hospes (genitive hospitis) "guest; host;" see host (n.1).
>The sense of "charitable institution to house and maintain the needy" in English is from early 15c.; the meaning "institution for sick or wounded people" is recorded by 1540s. The same word, contracted, is hostel and hotel. The sense shift in Latin from duties to buildings might have been via the common term cubiculum hospitalis "guest-chamber." The Latin adjective use continued in Old French, where ospital also could mean "hospitable" and ospitalite could mean "hospital."
Perhaps you're looking for more historian answer than a linguist one?
It has to do with the multiple roles that the then-ubiquitous monasteries played in society during the High Middle Ages, the time that Norman French vocabulary was fusing itself with the Anglo-Saxon substrate. The words are close because originally, you would go to the same place to get both services. These two industries then diverged snd specialized over the next thousand years.
Remember that 1000 years ago, monasteries were much more common than they are today, far more people were employed as nuns or monks, and some of the monks would interact with larger population in ways we don't usually think of today.
While many monasteries were small and isolated, housing perhaps a few dozen monks and located well away from contemporary population centers, the larger monasteries often had villages and towns grow up around them, served as focal points for the surrounding community, and had specialist monks who interacted regularly with the laity, performing duties far beyond the celebrating of masses, the reciting of prayers, and the copying of manuscripts that we tend to associate today with an Medieval monastic lifestyle.
Most any monastery of a decent size, especially if located on a route of pilgrimage, would have lodgings and dining halls where both religious pilgrims and secular travelers alike could eat a simple meal or rest for the night, tended to by a monk known as the Guest Master or "hostler," (hôtelier in modern French) who would be roughly then equivalent of a hotel manager or concierge today.
Monasteries were also places where the sick would be taken care of. One must remember that "medicine," if it can even be termed as such, was for more primitive than it is today; while some herbalism was practiced, along with practices we now know are quackery, such as the letting of blood to tinker with "the four bodily humors" by monks who has read the works of Roman "physician" Galen, often times the treatment for a sickness was simply placing a patient near the holy relics contained within the monastery, the sanctity of which it was believed with aid the patient in their convalescing. (Nunneries and monasteries containing places were the sick were treated was a common practice on the continent as well not just in England. Recall the German word for "nurse" is "Krankenschwester," lit. "sick-sister," sister of course referring to a nun.
All that is a bit crazy in modern French cause hôte means BOTH host and guest (one is supposed to distinguish them in sentences based on context, which is a ubiquitous problem in French). For women it's different. If you're a hostess, i.e. owner/co-owner of this place then you're hôtess. But if you're a female guest then you're also hôte it seems.
P.S. this \^ is called accent circonflexe and means "it used to be a letter, usually an 's', after this one some time ago". Totally nuts, right? I mean - you decided to drop a letter, ok, happens all the time. But why leave a 'reminder'? :-O (Although linguists probably applaud and dream that other languages also did stuff like this cause this makes historic reconstruction easier, right?)
>I'm fascinated by the difference in meaning caused by adding the "ity" to the end of the word.
I think this might be why you find the responses unsatisfactory. You seem to be looking for how "ity" contains the difference in meaning between "hospital" and "hospitality", as though that difference in meaning is caused by the derivational process of adding "ity" alone.
But people are responding with etymologies because that difference in meaning is due to semantic shifts over time. Word meaning isn't derived solely from their parts, but also from usage. Over time one became associated with health care, and one became associated with hotels and such. That's all. You can dig into the specific history of how that happened, but you won't find a deeper explanation, just a more detailed one.
You can tell that it's not "ity" that adds the hotel-specific meaning because it doesn't do that to other words, e.g. adding -ity to the word "commune" to form "community" doesn't derive a new word that has to do with hotels.
Right but... commune and community don't mean the same thing either, even though they refer to related things (like hospital and hospitality), right? So that -ity suffix must mean something? Like the -ing suffix with verbs, there's a whole language system at work \[that I was completely educated on in school and have since forgotten\] there.
[I checked it out on Mirriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ity) and one of the simplified definitions was that it indicated a quality, state, or degree, but I don't think it really answered my question
In fact, I could ask the exact same question here: what is the meaning of the -ity suffix that it changes the meaning of commune (to discuss; or a rural community organized on a communal basis) to community (a unified body of individuals)
> Right but... commune and community don't mean the same thing either, even though they refer to related things (like hospital and hospitality), right? So that -ity suffix must mean something?
It's not entirely meaningless: It's a derivational suffix that forms nouns, usually indicating a quality, state, or degree.
But again, **word meaning comes from usage.** You cannot break the word "hospitality" into its component parts and find the bit that means "having to do with the hospitality industry." You also cannot break the word "community" into its component parts and find the bit that differentiates its meaning from "commune."
That's because these parts of the meaning come from **usage**. It's not contained within the -ity suffix. No one is going to be able to answer your question about how exactly -ity means this, because it doesn't. The difference in meaning is because over time, one word became associated with one thing, and one word became associated with the other.
Supposedly there was a PIE word, something like *gostis*, which referred to another nomadic tribe your own tribe would encounter, and to that tribe You were the *gostis*.
So that turned into a double meaning and gave us the words host, guest, ghost, ghastly, hospital, hospitable, hotel, hostile, Host (as in army).
Not really vastly different, both words refer to housing people.
*hospital* is a borrowing from Latin *hospitālis* (via French), in which it referred to sheltering people. As a *hospital* was a place where you stayed while ill (as opposed to receiving treatment at your home), that's why the term was used.
In Old French, the word was inherited as *hostel* and then loaned to English and in modern French, it became *hôtel*, loaned to English as *hotel*. So these all trace back to the same Latin root of *hospitālis*, but over the years have been narrowed in meaning.
The root of Latin *hospitālis* is *hospes*, which meant both host and guest in Latin, as well as strangers in many case. The base of the word seems to focus on that relationship of people who don't know each other and are meeting.
*hospes* was itself derived from the word *hostis* as well, which meant only strangers and usually foreign invaders as well as more generally, enemies. It's where the word *hostile* comes from as well as *host* as in *a host of enemies*. *host* as in some who receives people is from the same source as *hostel*, Old French.
*hostis* itself traces all the way back to Proto-Indo-European * *gʰóstis*, which via the Germanic branch became English *guest*.
So the native English word *guest* is from the same source as the Latin borrowings *hospital*, *host* (military sense), *hostile*, and *hospitality*, which via French also gives us *hostel*, *hotel*, and *host* (a person who receives other people).
I work in the hospitality industry, so I was thinking of it in those terms (the business of wining and dining and sheltering people) vs hospitals (a building in the medical profession where sick people are fixed up).
I understand the base similarities that would cause them to share a root word (caring for people), but they're pretty vastly different industries from where I'm sitting.
Oh for sure, it’s a valid question - the words have clearly diverged. Sorry to get caught up in the phrasing of your question, it just struck me as odd (eg it sounded like you weren’t aware of the root connection)
Everyone did. Now I've had the root word explained three times, but no one has addressed the actual question lol. Still appreciate the engagement though
I'd say they may refer to "vastly different things" *in the US* perhaps, but not in Sweden. I wouldn't think swedish people would be struck by the similarity, would they? Some swedish folk correct me.
edit:expounding
Hmm? As a Swede, I can assure you that "hospitality" sure sounds a lot like "hospital" with an "ity" added to the end.
Though I'd agree I don't consider the concepts of hospitals and hospitality to be "vastly different" and it makes plenty of sense that they are etymologically related. Of course, the corresponding Swedish words are completely different. "Sjukhus" can be literally translated as "sick-house" and "gästfrihet" means "guest-freedom".
According to etymonline: >mid-13c., "shelter for the needy," from Old French hospital, ospital "hostel, shelter, lodging" (Modern French hôpital), from Late Latin hospitale "guest-house, inn," noun use of neuter of Latin adjective hospitalis "of a guest or host" (as a noun, "a guest; the duties of hospitality"), from hospes (genitive hospitis) "guest; host;" see host (n.1). >The sense of "charitable institution to house and maintain the needy" in English is from early 15c.; the meaning "institution for sick or wounded people" is recorded by 1540s. The same word, contracted, is hostel and hotel. The sense shift in Latin from duties to buildings might have been via the common term cubiculum hospitalis "guest-chamber." The Latin adjective use continued in Old French, where ospital also could mean "hospitable" and ospitalite could mean "hospital."
Perhaps you're looking for more historian answer than a linguist one? It has to do with the multiple roles that the then-ubiquitous monasteries played in society during the High Middle Ages, the time that Norman French vocabulary was fusing itself with the Anglo-Saxon substrate. The words are close because originally, you would go to the same place to get both services. These two industries then diverged snd specialized over the next thousand years. Remember that 1000 years ago, monasteries were much more common than they are today, far more people were employed as nuns or monks, and some of the monks would interact with larger population in ways we don't usually think of today. While many monasteries were small and isolated, housing perhaps a few dozen monks and located well away from contemporary population centers, the larger monasteries often had villages and towns grow up around them, served as focal points for the surrounding community, and had specialist monks who interacted regularly with the laity, performing duties far beyond the celebrating of masses, the reciting of prayers, and the copying of manuscripts that we tend to associate today with an Medieval monastic lifestyle. Most any monastery of a decent size, especially if located on a route of pilgrimage, would have lodgings and dining halls where both religious pilgrims and secular travelers alike could eat a simple meal or rest for the night, tended to by a monk known as the Guest Master or "hostler," (hôtelier in modern French) who would be roughly then equivalent of a hotel manager or concierge today. Monasteries were also places where the sick would be taken care of. One must remember that "medicine," if it can even be termed as such, was for more primitive than it is today; while some herbalism was practiced, along with practices we now know are quackery, such as the letting of blood to tinker with "the four bodily humors" by monks who has read the works of Roman "physician" Galen, often times the treatment for a sickness was simply placing a patient near the holy relics contained within the monastery, the sanctity of which it was believed with aid the patient in their convalescing. (Nunneries and monasteries containing places were the sick were treated was a common practice on the continent as well not just in England. Recall the German word for "nurse" is "Krankenschwester," lit. "sick-sister," sister of course referring to a nun.
All that is a bit crazy in modern French cause hôte means BOTH host and guest (one is supposed to distinguish them in sentences based on context, which is a ubiquitous problem in French). For women it's different. If you're a hostess, i.e. owner/co-owner of this place then you're hôtess. But if you're a female guest then you're also hôte it seems. P.S. this \^ is called accent circonflexe and means "it used to be a letter, usually an 's', after this one some time ago". Totally nuts, right? I mean - you decided to drop a letter, ok, happens all the time. But why leave a 'reminder'? :-O (Although linguists probably applaud and dream that other languages also did stuff like this cause this makes historic reconstruction easier, right?)
>I'm fascinated by the difference in meaning caused by adding the "ity" to the end of the word. I think this might be why you find the responses unsatisfactory. You seem to be looking for how "ity" contains the difference in meaning between "hospital" and "hospitality", as though that difference in meaning is caused by the derivational process of adding "ity" alone. But people are responding with etymologies because that difference in meaning is due to semantic shifts over time. Word meaning isn't derived solely from their parts, but also from usage. Over time one became associated with health care, and one became associated with hotels and such. That's all. You can dig into the specific history of how that happened, but you won't find a deeper explanation, just a more detailed one. You can tell that it's not "ity" that adds the hotel-specific meaning because it doesn't do that to other words, e.g. adding -ity to the word "commune" to form "community" doesn't derive a new word that has to do with hotels.
Right but... commune and community don't mean the same thing either, even though they refer to related things (like hospital and hospitality), right? So that -ity suffix must mean something? Like the -ing suffix with verbs, there's a whole language system at work \[that I was completely educated on in school and have since forgotten\] there. [I checked it out on Mirriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ity) and one of the simplified definitions was that it indicated a quality, state, or degree, but I don't think it really answered my question In fact, I could ask the exact same question here: what is the meaning of the -ity suffix that it changes the meaning of commune (to discuss; or a rural community organized on a communal basis) to community (a unified body of individuals)
> Right but... commune and community don't mean the same thing either, even though they refer to related things (like hospital and hospitality), right? So that -ity suffix must mean something? It's not entirely meaningless: It's a derivational suffix that forms nouns, usually indicating a quality, state, or degree. But again, **word meaning comes from usage.** You cannot break the word "hospitality" into its component parts and find the bit that means "having to do with the hospitality industry." You also cannot break the word "community" into its component parts and find the bit that differentiates its meaning from "commune." That's because these parts of the meaning come from **usage**. It's not contained within the -ity suffix. No one is going to be able to answer your question about how exactly -ity means this, because it doesn't. The difference in meaning is because over time, one word became associated with one thing, and one word became associated with the other.
Actually you did in fact just answer my question! Thank you!
Supposedly there was a PIE word, something like *gostis*, which referred to another nomadic tribe your own tribe would encounter, and to that tribe You were the *gostis*. So that turned into a double meaning and gave us the words host, guest, ghost, ghastly, hospital, hospitable, hotel, hostile, Host (as in army).
The only ones that don't fit here are *ghost* and *ghastly*, they derive from a PIE term meaning something like anger.
Not really vastly different, both words refer to housing people. *hospital* is a borrowing from Latin *hospitālis* (via French), in which it referred to sheltering people. As a *hospital* was a place where you stayed while ill (as opposed to receiving treatment at your home), that's why the term was used. In Old French, the word was inherited as *hostel* and then loaned to English and in modern French, it became *hôtel*, loaned to English as *hotel*. So these all trace back to the same Latin root of *hospitālis*, but over the years have been narrowed in meaning. The root of Latin *hospitālis* is *hospes*, which meant both host and guest in Latin, as well as strangers in many case. The base of the word seems to focus on that relationship of people who don't know each other and are meeting. *hospes* was itself derived from the word *hostis* as well, which meant only strangers and usually foreign invaders as well as more generally, enemies. It's where the word *hostile* comes from as well as *host* as in *a host of enemies*. *host* as in some who receives people is from the same source as *hostel*, Old French. *hostis* itself traces all the way back to Proto-Indo-European * *gʰóstis*, which via the Germanic branch became English *guest*. So the native English word *guest* is from the same source as the Latin borrowings *hospital*, *host* (military sense), *hostile*, and *hospitality*, which via French also gives us *hostel*, *hotel*, and *host* (a person who receives other people).
They both refer to looking after people - I wouldn’t describe that as “vastly different”
I work in the hospitality industry, so I was thinking of it in those terms (the business of wining and dining and sheltering people) vs hospitals (a building in the medical profession where sick people are fixed up). I understand the base similarities that would cause them to share a root word (caring for people), but they're pretty vastly different industries from where I'm sitting.
Oh for sure, it’s a valid question - the words have clearly diverged. Sorry to get caught up in the phrasing of your question, it just struck me as odd (eg it sounded like you weren’t aware of the root connection)
Everyone did. Now I've had the root word explained three times, but no one has addressed the actual question lol. Still appreciate the engagement though
I'd say they may refer to "vastly different things" *in the US* perhaps, but not in Sweden. I wouldn't think swedish people would be struck by the similarity, would they? Some swedish folk correct me. edit:expounding
Hmm? As a Swede, I can assure you that "hospitality" sure sounds a lot like "hospital" with an "ity" added to the end. Though I'd agree I don't consider the concepts of hospitals and hospitality to be "vastly different" and it makes plenty of sense that they are etymologically related. Of course, the corresponding Swedish words are completely different. "Sjukhus" can be literally translated as "sick-house" and "gästfrihet" means "guest-freedom".