![\"PSmith_ch.8_IMAGE\"](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/greeklatinroots\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/52\/2016\/07\/PSmith_ch.8_IMAGE-1024x734.jpg\")
<\/p>\r\nMany Latin prefixes are derived from prepositions or adverbs that express spatial concepts. A similar principle can be seen at work in Germanic combinations like intake<\/i>, outlet,<\/i> undermine<\/i>, and overthrow<\/i>. If one can visualize the images that these prefixes convey, it is not necessary to memorize their meanings. The following schematic chart may provide some sense of the semantic picture. The shaded cube can be regarded as the representation of any space, affected by the various prefixes in the manner shown.<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/b>Just as super-<\/b> and sub-<\/b> can be viewed as a pair of semantic opposites, so can ad-<\/b> (\u201cto\u201d or \u201ctoward\u201d) be regarded as the opposite of a(b)-<\/b> (\u201caway,\u201d \u201caway from\u201d). Ad-<\/b>, which we won\u2019t really be able to appreciate until we have some learned some verb vocabulary, has a bewildering tendency to assimilate with almost every consonant of the alphabet. It is present in the English words accept<\/i>, affect<\/i>, aggression<\/i>, alleviate<\/i>, announce<\/i>, apprehend<\/i>, acquire<\/i>, arrogant<\/i>, attract<\/i>\u2014and assimilate<\/i> itself, which derives from ad- <\/b>and similis <\/b>(\u201cliken toward\u201d). Fortunately, ab-<\/b> is much less prone to disguise, though it will appear sometimes in English as a-<\/i> (a-verse) <\/i>or abs-<\/i> (abs-tract). <\/i><\/p>\r\n
E-<\/b> or ex- <\/b>(\u201cout,\u201d \u201cout of\u201d), very common both in Latin and in English derivatives, is an easy prefix to recognize and remember. Eject<\/i> is \u201cthrow out\u201d; expel<\/i> is \u201cdrive out.\u201d In \u00a742<\/a> we met egregious<\/i> (L e-greg-ius<\/b>), \u201cstanding out from the flock.\u201d In classical Latin, de-<\/b> meant \u201cdown (from)\u201d; the etymological meaning of descend<\/i> is \u201cclimb down.\u201d However, it could also suggest \u201coff\u201d or \u201caway,\u201d as in deter<\/i>, \u201cfrighten off,\u201d and devious<\/i> (L de-vi-us<\/b>), \u201cgoing off the road.\u201d<\/p>\r\n Although they may perhaps overlap slightly in meaning, per-<\/b> (\u201cthrough\u201d) and trans- <\/b>(\u201cacross\u201d) are quite straightforward. A perennial<\/i> flower blooms \u201cthrough the years,\u201d whereas a transvestite<\/i> \u201cdresses across.\u201d[footnote] The word travesty<\/em> is derived from a form of entertainment in which men dressed as women.[\/footnote]<\/a> If a substance is impervious<\/i> (L im-per-vi-us<\/b>), it does not allow a way through. In addition to its spatial force, the prefix per-<\/b> can also mean \u201cthoroughly\u201d (perfervid<\/i>, pellucid<\/i>); and occasionally it carries the strange meaning of \u201cto the bad,\u201d as in pervert<\/i>, perjure<\/i>, perfidy<\/i>, perfidious<\/i>, perish<\/i>, and perdition<\/i>.<\/p>\r\n The form circum-<\/b> (\u201caround\u201d) may be the easiest of all Latin prefixes. Even a word as learned and polysyllabic as circumnavigate<\/i> can be understood by young children, since the force of the prefix is so obvious. Still, we\u2019ll find that circum- <\/b>has produced some very interesting and unusual English derivatives. It is related to the Latin noun circus<\/b>, and to the adverb circa<\/b>, which appears in English dating formulas (c. 1950 or ca. 1950 = \u201caround\u201d 1950).<\/p>\r\n By now you have surely noticed the alarming fact that there are two separate Latin prefix spelled in-<\/b>. Earlier we saw the negative form, which is actually less common in Latin than an identical morpheme with the very different English meaning of \u201cin\u201d or \u201cinto.\u201d In conjunction with verb bases, in-<\/b> will usually have this spatial force; thus infer<\/i> and import<\/i> both mean \u201cbring in.\u201d You must stay on guard to avoid being tricked by the two different meanings of in-<\/b>. Sometimes English is downright mean, as in the case of flammable<\/i> and inflammable<\/i>, which are exact synonyms. If you want to say that something will not burn, you must call it non-flammable<\/i>\u2014though there is Christmas tinsel on sale in Victoria which describes itself, with admirable linguistic panache, as ininflammable<\/i>.<\/p>","rendered":" Many Latin prefixes are derived from prepositions or adverbs that express spatial concepts. A similar principle can be seen at work in Germanic combinations like intake<\/i>, outlet,<\/i> undermine<\/i>, and overthrow<\/i>. If one can visualize the images that these prefixes convey, it is not necessary to memorize their meanings. The following schematic chart may provide some sense of the semantic picture. The shaded cube can be regarded as the representation of any space, affected by the various prefixes in the manner shown.<\/p>\n <\/b>Just as super-<\/b> and sub-<\/b> can be viewed as a pair of semantic opposites, so can ad-<\/b> (\u201cto\u201d or \u201ctoward\u201d) be regarded as the opposite of a(b)-<\/b> (\u201caway,\u201d \u201caway from\u201d). Ad-<\/b>, which we won\u2019t really be able to appreciate until we have some learned some verb vocabulary, has a bewildering tendency to assimilate with almost every consonant of the alphabet. It is present in the English words accept<\/i>, affect<\/i>, aggression<\/i>, alleviate<\/i>, announce<\/i>, apprehend<\/i>, acquire<\/i>, arrogant<\/i>, attract<\/i>\u2014and assimilate<\/i> itself, which derives from ad- <\/b>and similis <\/b>(\u201cliken toward\u201d). Fortunately, ab-<\/b> is much less prone to disguise, though it will appear sometimes in English as a-<\/i> (a-verse) <\/i>or abs-<\/i> (abs-tract). <\/i><\/p>\n E-<\/b> or ex- <\/b>(\u201cout,\u201d \u201cout of\u201d), very common both in Latin and in English derivatives, is an easy prefix to recognize and remember. Eject<\/i> is \u201cthrow out\u201d; expel<\/i> is \u201cdrive out.\u201d In \u00a742<\/a> we met egregious<\/i> (L e-greg-ius<\/b>), \u201cstanding out from the flock.\u201d In classical Latin, de-<\/b> meant \u201cdown (from)\u201d; the etymological meaning of descend<\/i> is \u201cclimb down.\u201d However, it could also suggest \u201coff\u201d or \u201caway,\u201d as in deter<\/i>, \u201cfrighten off,\u201d and devious<\/i> (L de-vi-us<\/b>), \u201cgoing off the road.\u201d<\/p>\n Although they may perhaps overlap slightly in meaning, per-<\/b> (\u201cthrough\u201d) and trans- <\/b>(\u201cacross\u201d) are quite straightforward. A perennial<\/i> flower blooms \u201cthrough the years,\u201d whereas a transvestite<\/i> \u201cdresses across.\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/a> If a substance is impervious<\/i> (L im-per-vi-us<\/b>), it does not allow a way through. In addition to its spatial force, the prefix per-<\/b> can also mean \u201cthoroughly\u201d (perfervid<\/i>, pellucid<\/i>); and occasionally it carries the strange meaning of \u201cto the bad,\u201d as in pervert<\/i>, perjure<\/i>, perfidy<\/i>, perfidious<\/i>, perish<\/i>, and perdition<\/i>.<\/p>\n The form circum-<\/b> (\u201caround\u201d) may be the easiest of all Latin prefixes. Even a word as learned and polysyllabic as circumnavigate<\/i> can be understood by young children, since the force of the prefix is so obvious. Still, we\u2019ll find that circum- <\/b>has produced some very interesting and unusual English derivatives. It is related to the Latin noun circus<\/b>, and to the adverb circa<\/b>, which appears in English dating formulas (c. 1950 or ca. 1950 = \u201caround\u201d 1950).<\/p>\n By now you have surely noticed the alarming fact that there are two separate Latin prefix spelled in-<\/b>. Earlier we saw the negative form, which is actually less common in Latin than an identical morpheme with the very different English meaning of \u201cin\u201d or \u201cinto.\u201d In conjunction with verb bases, in-<\/b> will usually have this spatial force; thus infer<\/i> and import<\/i> both mean \u201cbring in.\u201d You must stay on guard to avoid being tricked by the two different meanings of in-<\/b>. Sometimes English is downright mean, as in the case of flammable<\/i> and inflammable<\/i>, which are exact synonyms. If you want to say that something will not burn, you must call it non-flammable<\/i>\u2014though there is Christmas tinsel on sale in Victoria which describes itself, with admirable linguistic panache, as ininflammable<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n