Quel est l'origine du mot « draconique » ? Pourquoi on a remplacé le « g » par un « c », ça n'a pas de logique !? ne devrait-on pas dire « dragonique » ?
@JoonasIlmavirta That's a good point, and I think I could have phrased it better. Which law of affinity is more suited to friendship or marriage, might be a more accurate pressing. Because in order for two people to be attracted, it's common to either have similarity ("like attracts like") or reciprocal needs ("opposites attract").
In my experience, I find that the best marriages (and friendships) are most often initiated by the first principle, "like attracts like", not the second, reciprocal needs.
@ktm5124 I agree, likeness is important. Otherwise communication might be hard and standards too different.
Perhaps I could say that similarity makes a relationship possible, but is not enough alone to make it work. Necessary, not sufficient.
@Cerberus Regarding your question on collega and the like, do you have examples of the masculine suffix -as in Latin? I can't remember seeing it used in anything similar to your cases of -a.
And yes, my identifying the -a in traha with that of collega is just morphological. I have no clue of the etymologies of suffixes. If I did, I would have answered.
I'm not sure whether to expect that kind of thing to be unknown.
But coming back to your question, I have seen the -a in Latin several times, but never an -as. So I would argue that the Latin suffix is -a for both masculine and feminine.
It could have been originally only feminine and then shifted to masculine by natural gender for words like collega. I'm not sure how strict early Latin gender assignment was, so I'm tempted to treat it as ambivalent unless there is proof for one over the other.