English prefix: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:40, 16 October 2008

English prefixes are affixes (i.e., bound morphemes that provide the primary meaning) that are added before either simple roots or complex bases (or operands) consisting of (a) a root and other affixes, (b) multiple roots, or (c) multiple roots and other affixes. Examples of these follow:

undo (consisting of prefix un- and root do)
untouchable (consisting of prefix un-, root touch, and suffix -able
non-childproof (consisting of prefix non-, root child, and root proof)
non-childproofable (consisting of prefix non-, root child, root proof, and suffix -able)

English words may consist of multiple prefixes: anti-pseudo-classicism (containing both an anti- prefix and a pseudo- prefix).

In English, all prefixes are derivational. This contrasts with English suffixes, which may be either derivational or inflectional.

Selectional restrictions

As is often the case with derivational morphology, many English prefixes can only be added to bases of particular lexical categories (or "parts of speech"). For example, the prefix re- meaning "again, back" is only added to verb bases as in rebuild, reclaim, reuse, resell, re-evaluate, resettle. It cannot be added to bases of other lexical categories. Thus, examples of re- plus a noun base (such as the ungrammatical *rehusband, *remonopoly) or re- plus an adjective base (*renatural, *rewise) are virtually unattested.^[1]

These selectional restrictions on what base a prefix can be attached to can be used to distinguish between otherwise identical-sounding prefixes. For instance, there are two different un- prefixes in English: one meaning "not, opposite of", the other meaning "reverse action, deprive of, release from". The first prefix un- "not" is attached to adjective and participle bases while the second prefix un- "reverse action" is attached to either verb or noun bases. Thus, English can have two words that are pronounced and spelled the same and have the same lexical category but have different meanings, different prefixes, a different internal morphological structure, and different internal bases that the prefixes are attached to:

unlockable "not able to be locked"
unlockable "able to be unlocked"

In the first unlockable "not able to be locked", the prefix un- "not" is attached to an adjective base lockable (which, in turn, is composed of lock + -able). This word has the following internal structure:

[ un [ [ lock ]_verb able ]_adj ]_adj

In the second unlockable "able to be unlocked", the prefix un- "reverse action" is attached to a verb base lock, resulting in the derived verb unlock. Subsequently, the -able suffix is added after the newly created unlock adjective base deriving the adjective unlockable. This word has the following internal structure:

[ [ un [ lock ]_verb ]_verb able ]_adj

Changes in lexical category

Unlike derivational suffixes, English (derivational) prefixes typically do not change the lexical category of the base (and are called class-maintaining prefixes). Thus, the word do consisting of a single morpheme is a verb as is the word redo, which consists of the prefix re- and the base root do.

However, there are some prefixes in English that are class-changing in that the word resulting after prefixation belongs to a lexical category that is different from the lexical category of the base. Examples of this type include a-, be-, and en-. a- typically creates adjectives from noun and verb bases: blaze (noun/verb) > ablaze (adj). The relatively unproductive be- creates transitive verbs from noun bases: witch (noun) > bewitch (verb). en- creates transitive verbs from noun bases: slave (noun) > enslave (verb)

Native vs. non-native (neo-classical) prefixing

Several English words are easily analyzed as a combination of a dependent affix and an independent base, such as in the words boy-hood or un-just. Following Marchand (1969), these types of words are referred to as words formed by native word-formation processes.

Other words in English (and also in French and German) are formed by foreign word-formation processes, particularly Greek and Latin word-formation processes. These word types are often known as neo-classical (or neo-Latin) words and are often found in academic learned vocabulary domains (such as in science fields). Words of this nature are borrowed from either Greek or Latin or have been newly coined based upon Greek and Latin word-formation processes. It is possible to detect varying degrees of foreignness.^[2]

Neo-classical prefixes are often excluded from analyses of English derivation on the grounds that they are not analyzable according to an English basis.^[3] Thus, anglicized neo-classical English words such as deceive are not analyzed as being composed of a prefix de- and a bound base -ceive but are rather analyzed as being composed of a single morpheme (although the Latin sources of these English words are, of course, analyzed as such as Latin words in the Latin language).^[4] However, not all foreign words are unanalyzable according to an English basis: some foreign elements have become a part of productive English word-formation processes. An example of such a now native English prefix is co- as in co-worker, which is ultimately derived from the Latin prefix com- (with its allomorphs co-, con-, col-, and cor-).

Initial combining forms vs. prefixes

Combining form

List of English prefixes

Native

Prefix	Meaning	Example
a-/an-	lacking in, lack of	asexual, anemic
a-	verb > predicative adjective with progressive aspect	afloat, atremble
anti-	against	anti-war, antivirus, anti-human
arch-	supreme, highest, worst	arch-rival
be-	equipped with, covered with, beset with (pejorative or facetious)	bedeviled, becalm, bedazzle, bewitch
co-	joint, with, accompanying	co-worker, coordinator, cooperation
counter-	against, in opposition to	counteract, counterpart
de-	reverse action, get rid of	de-emphasise
dis-	not, opposite of	disloyal, disagree
dis-	reverse action, get rid of	disconnect, disinformation,
en-/em-	to make into, to put into, to get into	enmesh, empower
ex-	former	ex-husband, ex-boss, ex-colleague
fore-	before	forerunner,
hyper-	extra specially, over, high	hypermarket, hyperthermia
in-/il-/im-/ir-	not, opposite of	inexact, irregular
infra-	below, beneath	infrared
inter-	between, among	interstate, interact
mal-	bad(ly)	malnourish
mid-	middle	midlife
mini-	small	minimarket, mini-room
mis-	wrong, astray	misinformation, misguide
out-	better, faster, longer, beyond	outreach, outcome
over-	too much	overreact, overact
pan-	all, world-wide	pan-African
post-	after	post-election, post-graduation
pre-	before	pre-election, pre-enter
pro-	for, on the side of	pro-life
re-	again, back	rerun
self-	self	self-sufficient
step-	family relation by remarriage	stepbrother
sub-	under, lower than, less than, beneath, lesser in rank	sub-zero
super-	over, above, more than, better	super-heated, superpower, supernatural
trans-	across, from one place to another	transatlantic
twi-	two	twibill, twilight
ultra-	beyond, extremely	ultraviolet, ultramagnetic
un-	not, opposite of	unnecessary, unequal
un-	reverse action, deprive of, release from	undo, untie
under-	below, beneath, lower in grade/dignity, lesser, insufficient	underachieve, underground, underpass
vice-	deputy	vice-president, vice-principal
with-	against	withstand

Neo-classical

Prefix	Meaning	Examples
Afro-	relating to Africa	Afro-American
ambi-	both	ambitendency
amphi-	two, both, on both sides	amphiaster, amphitheater
ana-/an-	up, against	anacardiaceous, anode
Anglo-	relating to England	Anglo-Norman
ante-	before	antenatal
anti-	opposite	anti-clockwise
apo-	away, different from	apomorphine
astro-	star	astrobiology
auto-	self	autobiography, automatic
bi-	two	bicycle
bio-	biological	biodegrade
circum-	around	circumnavigate
cis-	on this side of	cislunar
con-/com-/col-/cor-/co-	together or with	confederation, commingle, colleague, correlation, cohabit
contra-	opposite	contradict
cryo-	ice	cryogenics
crypto-	hidden, secret	cryptography
demi-	half	demigod
demo-	people	demography
di-	two	dioxide
down-	to make something lesser, lower or worse	downgrade
du-/duo-	two	duet
eco-	ecological	ecosystem
electro-	electric, electricity	electro-analysis
epi-	upon, at, close upon, in addition	epidermis
Euro-	European	Eurocentric
ex-	out of	export
extra-	outside	extracurricular
fin-	kinship	affinity
Franco-	French, France	Francophile
geo-	relating to the earth or its surface	geography
hetero-	different	heterosexual
hemi-	half	hemimorphic
homo-	same	homosexual, homophobic
hydro-	relating to water, or using water	hydroelectricity
hypo-	under or below something, low	hypothermia
in-	in, into	insert
iso-	equal	isochromatic
intra-	inside	intravenous
macro-	long	macrobiotic
maxi-	very long, very large	maxi-skirt
mega-/megalo-	very large	megastar, megalopolis
meta-	after, along with, beyond, among, behind	meta-theory
micro-	minute size	microbacillus
midi-	medium-sized	midi-length
mono-	one, sole, only	monogamy
multi-	many	multi-storey
neo-	new	neolithic
non-	not	nonexistent
paleo-	old	paleo-lithic
para-	beside, beyond	parallel
ped-/pod-	foot	pedestrian, podiatrist
per-	through, completely, wrongly, exceedingly	permeate, permute
peri-	around	periphrase
poly-	many	polygon
photo-	light, photography, photograph	photoelectric
preter-	beyond, past, more than	preternatural
pro-	substitute, deputy	proconsul
pro-	before	procambium
pros-	toward	prosthesis
proto-	first, original	protoplasm, prototype
pseudo-	false, imitation	pseudonym
pyro-	fire	pyrokinetic
quasi-	partly, almost, appearing to be but not really	quasi-religious
retro-	backwards	retrograde
semi-	half	semicircle
socio-	society, social, sociological	sociopath
supra-	above	suprarenal
sur-	above, over	surreal, surrender
syn-, sy-, syl-, sym-	together or with	synthesis, symbol, syllable, system
tele-	at a distance	television
tri-	three	tricycle
uni-	one	unicycle
up-	to make something greater, higher, or better	upgrade
ven-	to move forward	venal

Archaic

Prefix	Meaning	Example
y-	inflectional prefix	yclad, yclept (both archaic words)

Notes

^ Occasionally, these selectional restrictions are violated for stylist effect, as in the coinage of the word Uncola in Seven-Up soft drink advertisements. The prefix un- meaning "not" is typically added to adjectives, thus adding it to a noun cola makes the word more noticeable.
^ See Marchand (1969: 7).
^ See, for example, Quirk et al. (1985).
^ Marchand's (1969:5-6) argumentation: "Bearing in mind the bi-morphemic, i.e. two-sign character of derivatives and the ensuing opposability of both elements, it seems a little embarrassing to revert to the topic of the analysis of conceive, deceive, receive described as bimorphemic by Bloomfield, Harris and Nida. Newman establishes such suffixal derivatives as horr-or, horr-id, horr-ify; stup-or, stup-id, stup-efy. What are the bases horr- and stup- and what are the meanings of the suffixes? With the exception of ‘‘stupefy’’, which by forced interpretation could be made to look like syntagma, none of the 'derivatives' is analysable into two significates.... The fact that we can align such formal series as con-tain, de-tain, re-tain; con-ceive, de-ceive, re-ceive does not prove any morphemic character of the formally identical parts as they are not united by a common significate. The preceding words are nothing but monemes. Conceive, deceive, receive are not comparable to syntagmas such as co-author 'joint-author', de-frost 'remove the frost', re-do 'do again', the correct analysis of which is proved by numerous parallel syntagmas (co-chairman, co-defendant, co-hostess; de-gum, de-horn, de-husk; re-furbish, re-hash, re-write). If the two series con-tain, de-tain, re-tain / con-ceive, de-ceive, re-ceive, through mere syllabication and arbitrary division of sound complexes yield morphemes, why should we not be allowed to establish the similar morpheme-yielding series ba-ker, fa-ker, ma-ker / bai-ling, fai-ling, mai-ling? If we neglect content, how can we expose such a division as nonsensical? .... In fact, nobody would think of making the wrong morpheme division as our memory keeps perfect store of free and bound morphemes as significant/significate relations. It is only with a certain restricted class of words of distinctly non-native origin that we fall into the error of establishing unisolable morphemes.... If conceive, deceive, receive, are matched by the substantives conception, deception, reception, this is so because Latin verbs in -cipere are anglicized as verbs in -ceive while the corresponding Latin substantives conceptio, deceptio, receptio in English have the form given above. The alternation -sume vb/-sumption sb is obviously restricted to pairs corresponding to the Latin alternation -sumere vb/-sumptio sb. Nobody, unless he was trying to be witty, would extend the correlative pattern to pairs of words outside the particular structural system to which the words ultimately belong.... The natural synchronic description will therefore deal with foreign-coined words on the basis of the structural system to which they belong."

Hello there jonah thomas of northern cambria was here

External links

English prefix and suffix reference website

Bibliography

Adams, Valerie. (1973). An introduction to modern English word-formation. London: Longman.
Ayers, Donald M. (1986). English words from Latin and Greek elements (2nd & rev. ed.). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Bauer, Laurie. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Roland W. (1927). Materials for word-study: A manual of roots, prefixes, suffixes and derivatives in the English language. New Haven, CT: Van Dyck & Co.
Cannon, Garland Hampton. (1987). Historical change and English word-formation: Recent vocabulary. New York: P. Lang.
Jespersen, Otto. (1942). A modern English grammar on historical principles: Morphology (Part 6). London: George Allen & Unwin and Ejnar Munksgaard.
Marchand, Hans. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation (2nd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). Appendix I: Word-formation. In A comprehensive grammar of the English language (pp. 1517-1585). Harlow: Longman.
Simpson, John (Ed.). (1989). Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[1] Occasionally, these selectional restrictions are violated for stylist effect, as in the coinage of the word Uncola in Seven-Up soft drink advertisements. The prefix un- meaning "not" is typically added to adjectives, thus adding it to a noun cola makes the word more noticeable.

[2] See Marchand (1969: 7).

[3] See, for example, Quirk et al. (1985).

[4] Marchand's (1969:5-6) argumentation: "Bearing in mind the bi-morphemic, i.e. two-sign character of derivatives and the ensuing opposability of both elements, it seems a little embarrassing to revert to the topic of the analysis of conceive, deceive, receive described as bimorphemic by Bloomfield, Harris and Nida. Newman establishes such suffixal derivatives as horr-or, horr-id, horr-ify; stup-or, stup-id, stup-efy. What are the bases horr- and stup- and what are the meanings of the suffixes? With the exception of ‘‘stupefy’’, which by forced interpretation could be made to look like syntagma, none of the 'derivatives' is analysable into two significates.... The fact that we can align such formal series as con-tain, de-tain, re-tain; con-ceive, de-ceive, re-ceive does not prove any morphemic character of the formally identical parts as they are not united by a common significate. The preceding words are nothing but monemes. Conceive, deceive, receive are not comparable to syntagmas such as co-author 'joint-author', de-frost 'remove the frost', re-do 'do again', the correct analysis of which is proved by numerous parallel syntagmas (co-chairman, co-defendant, co-hostess; de-gum, de-horn, de-husk; re-furbish, re-hash, re-write). If the two series con-tain, de-tain, re-tain / con-ceive, de-ceive, re-ceive, through mere syllabication and arbitrary division of sound complexes yield morphemes, why should we not be allowed to establish the similar morpheme-yielding series ba-ker, fa-ker, ma-ker / bai-ling, fai-ling, mai-ling? If we neglect content, how can we expose such a division as nonsensical? .... In fact, nobody would think of making the wrong morpheme division as our memory keeps perfect store of free and bound morphemes as significant/significate relations. It is only with a certain restricted class of words of distinctly non-native origin that we fall into the error of establishing unisolable morphemes.... If conceive, deceive, receive, are matched by the substantives conception, deception, reception, this is so because Latin verbs in -cipere are anglicized as verbs in -ceive while the corresponding Latin substantives conceptio, deceptio, receptio in English have the form given above. The alternation -sume vb/-sumption sb is obviously restricted to pairs corresponding to the Latin alternation -sumere vb/-sumptio sb. Nobody, unless he was trying to be witty, would extend the correlative pattern to pairs of words outside the particular structural system to which the words ultimately belong.... The natural synchronic description will therefore deal with foreign-coined words on the basis of the structural system to which they belong."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 321: / Line 321: @@
 {{reflist}}
+Hello there jonah thomas of northern cambria was here
-==See also==
-* [[English grammar]]
-* [[English compound]]
-* [[Affix]]
 == External links ==