Talk:English prefix

Expansion Tags

Wiktionary has pretty extensive lists of prefixes under Appendix:English prefixes. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While this is likely true, it's understood by all that articles should be expanded where verifiable, reliable facts can be added. The inclusion of an {{Expand-section}} tag into every section of the article is unnecessary, and what's worse is that by adding one to every section the tag completely looses any impact that it may have. That's why I've removed them all. If you feel that a specific section is in particular need of expansion, feel free to readd the tag to that section.
— V = I * R (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the Split in List of Prefixes?

Why does the sorted list of prefixes start and restart? (between with- and ab-) I will sort the entire list unless there is a good explanation (we should indicate it on the page if there is a good reason). --Rgonsalv (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I recall, the first section was for the "Germanic" or "native" prefixes and the second section was all the "neoclassical" ones (Greek and Latin). Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Uni-

Unity, United, Unicorn, Unabrow, Ect....

For-

Not the fore- of foreboding, but the for- of forgive, forget, forlorn, forsake(n), etc. It's a cognate with the German ver-, of that I am 99,9% certain (vergeben, vergessen, verloren, etc). But what it its meaning? I couldn't tell you what the German ver- does to its word either, other than (usually) make it into a transitive or reflexive verb. Could someone explain, and maybe add to the article if they think they know what they are talking about? 217.235.112.216 (talk · contribs)

This prefix is no longer analyzable for English speakers (although many may be able to isolate it from the base). In other words, it is no longer a prefix and forgive, forget are just single morpheme words without any internal parts. So, if the page is about English prefixes in the modern language (in a synchronic sense), then a for- prefix should not be listed. Besides what you list, forgo, forspend, forswear, forbear, forgather are other words.

But, for- was a prefix earlier before it became unproductive and unanalyzable. And if this page is supposed to include more historical information, then it could be listed under the archaic section.

In Old English, for- (originally a preposition) was attached to verbs and adjectives with meanings of (1) loss, destruction, (2) intensification, (3) perfectivity. However, in words like forbeodan (= Modern English forbid) "forbid, refuse", forgiefan (= ModE forgive) "give up, forgive", forgietan (=ModE forget) "forget", the original meanings are being lost. It is, as you mention, related to German ver-. By Middle English for- is no longer productive and has lost it prefixal meaning. It doesnt make a verb transitive or reflexive.

Marchand suggests that only in some dialects can any trace of the original meaning be found: forbear with a dialectal meaning of "endure" (it means "hold back, resist" in the standard language), and forgather "assemble" an uncommon word marked as "chiefly Scots" by Oxford English Dictionary.– ishwar  (speak) 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ishwar I find the notion of grammar as expressed in the West "questionable" and culturally specific. The field overall also seems to me to be unnecessarily "aggressive" in disallowing alternative views (viz Chomsky and Everett). If a "strict" grammatical definition alone is to be applied here then there seems to me to be a case for an article that has a less strict approach, one inferred by the example of "for-" that is given above. I am unclear why if "for-" is disallowed under the definitions used her that "sur-" is allowed. In any case it seems to me that this page could be duplicated and expanded elsewhere, replacing the strict technical grammatical definitions for something "looser", more flexible, and more immediately explanatory more widely of etymological meaning. I personally would find such an expanded list very useful. Would there be a problem with this? Having as a guideline that the "ancestry" of a word is unclear or lost in the mists of time should not in my opinion preclude a prefix from inclusion. LookingGlass (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

i NEED EXAMPLES xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.188.138 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the prefix sur-, one of the given examples is "surrunder". To my knowledge, this is not a word, nor was I able to find it in a quick dictionary search. Perhaps it was intended to be surrender or surround, both of which dictionary.com states as being formed using the sur- prefix. 129.22.21.118 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for noticing this. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Native

The "Native" section includes a large number of items that should be (and in many cases already are) in the "Neo-classical" section. An-/ana- and hyper-, as just two examples, are from Latin and are not native Anglo-Saxon at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is a mess. The distinction native v. foreign should mean Anglo-Saxon (possibly Norman French) v. direct borrowings from other languages; however, the explanation of native v. neoclassical (which aren't exactly naturally opposite categories) makes it clear that the only thing to go into the former category are prefixes that don't function as prefixes in English. For the list of prefixes, it seems to be an entirely pointless concept. Anything used as a prefix falls under the native category: the list should either be a single one (English prefixes) or one divided into languages of origin. The distinction also leads the bizarre result that many English "prefixes" like the for- discussed above, which are never used as separate units, should be considered "Neoclassical" rather than "native."

But perhaps the article is incorrect, and the "neo-" is just pointless academic jargon appended to "classical" (ie, Greek & Latin)? In that case, there's still a third category of Non-Saxon, Non-Classical roots and we should still just make a single list or one divided by source languages. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Homo

While 'homophobic' is derived from 'homosexual', the prefix does not act as a modifier to create a word meaning afraid of the same, but is a shorthand way of saying homosexualphobic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabbak (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why separated of hyphenated?

English is the worst language that I know when it comes to prefixation. Why write the prefixes separated or hyphenated? It just doesn't make sense in 96% of the cases. You just need to know some basics about linguistics to realize, and you are absolutely sure when you know some more than the average... In this article nothing explicit is said in reference to that, and I consider it's vital.

81.184.212.85 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The yester- prefix

I understand the yester- prefix is now "unproductive", but is that a reason to exclude it from the list of prefixes, as this prefix is still in use in the words yesterday and yesteryear for example? (See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yester- ) --xephox (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

You have good explanations, but some tend to turn into run-on sentences. Instead of a long explanation, you could break down the explanation into smaller parts for better and cleaner clarification. Also, it would have been helpful to provide more examples in some of the sections, such as the section for "Native vs. non-native (neo-classical) prefixing." Nevertheless, although it is important to give examples, it is even more important to explain why. For example, instead of just giving examples for "there are a few prefixes in English that are class-changing," you could have given a reason for it first, before delving straight into examples.

--Millywkh (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of good information on this page, however it is currently challenging to access this information because of wording issues and a lack of examples to round out explanations. For example, the introduction could be slightly longer in order to properly define prefixes in relation to suffixes and their overall affixes, as well as define why prefixes are only derivational. The Selectional Restrictions section could be clarified with different wording, shorter sentences and more examples. As for the Changes in Lexical Category section, again more examples would aid the reader in understanding the difference between class-changing prefixes and class-maintaining prefixes—such as the word ″befriend″ as another verb derived from the prefix /be-/ and the noun friend. The Native vs. Non-Native (neo-classical) Prefixing section needs to be clarified with more information, such as how “it is possible to detect varying degrees of foreignness.” Finally, the Initial Combining Forms vs. Prefixes section does not seem complete—perhaps take the key points from the link you have provided and demonstrate them in relation to prefixes.

--Zlawler (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon VS Norman-French

This whole article is a huge mess, most prefixes listed under "Native" are not native at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.146.31 (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

merger with Prefix

This article needs to be merged with Prefix, just like they did with Suffix and English suffixes a while back. Masterhatch (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: Is this why you completely removed non-english examples from the articles? What purpose does this serve aside from deleting useful information? I'd like to know the rationale behind this. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 22:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, rationale can be found at Talk:Prefix#English_prefix. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 23:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)