In this interesting answer to a 4 year old question (which, ironically, I found by browsing unpopular questions on Meta), we find this tidbit:
Just as in Japanese, not only is the "non-native" stratum considered more erudite than the native one, there are grammatical differences between the strata (although fewer than there are in Japanese). For instance, the suffix -ate or -ation in English can only directly attach to a Latinate word, e.g. vary -> variation, but not bury -> *buriation.
What's interesting about it is I know the assertion to be true, but before reading this answer I could not have told you the etymology of the two words. I did not know vary is derived from Latin and bury from proto-Germanic. But I did know that not only was buriation "not a word", but it could not be one, despite the fact that I am more or less ignorant of the rules of English morphology.
That is, I am ignorant in the "explicit knowledge" sense, but obviously since I know buriation can't be a word, I have some tacit knowledge that I could never voice.
But how is that? What is it about bury, as opposed to vary, that tells me buriation could not be a word? I don't mean the decades of exposure and practice I have with English that tells me it isn't a word, but that morphologically speaking, it couldn't be.
Is there a more general rule at play here, something morphological as opposed to etymological? Are there more examples in this category?