\r\n| un-i-cycle<\/i><\/td>\r\n | bi-cycle<\/i><\/td>\r\n | one or two wheels (G \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2)<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n As these examples suggest, numerical prefixes often draw our attention to contrasts; unilateral<\/i> decisions may be opposed to those that are bilateral<\/i> or multilateral<\/i>. (Although Latin mult<\/b>- and Greek poly-<\/b> [\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5-] are not, strictly speaking, number words, they play an obvious role in compounds of this type.) A biped<\/i> may be contrasted with a quadruped<\/i> or a multiped<\/i>\u2014not to mention a centipede<\/i> or a millipede<\/i>. In the muscle names biceps<\/i>, triceps<\/i> (upper arm), and quadriceps<\/i> (thigh), the -ceps<\/i> element is derived from L caput<\/b> (\u201chead\u201d). Numerical compounds are conspicuous in geometry, of course: triangle<\/i> and quadrangle <\/i>derive from L angulus<\/b> (\u201ccorner,\u201d \u201cangle\u201d).[footnote] Thus a rect-angle<\/em> has the etymological meaning of \u201cstraight corner.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\nWe could list many more English words containing the Latin combining form bi-<\/b>: bifocal, bicultural<\/i> (v. multicultural<\/i>), bicuspid<\/i> (L cuspis<\/b>, \u201cpoint)), bifurcate<\/i> (denominative, from L furca<\/b>, \u201cfork\u201d), and bigamy<\/i> (hybrid, from G \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cmarriage\u201d). If the second element begins with a vowel, one may meet the related Latin combining form bin-<\/b>[footnote] The Latin distributive adjective bini<\/strong> meant \u201ctwo by two,\u201d \u201ctwo at a time,\u201d like the animals in Noah\u2019s Ark.[\/footnote]: binocular, binaural.<\/i> However, biovular<\/i> \u2014more easily read if spelled bi-ovular<\/i>\u2014is a term that describes the origin of fraternal twins.<\/p>\r\nAmong the \u201cother\u201d Latin numeral words given in \u00a7124<\/a> (and note 1) we find the direct source of English primary, secondary, tertiary, quartile, decimal, singular, binary, ternary, centenary,<\/i> and millenary<\/i>. The commemorative terms centenary<\/i> (100), sesquicentenary<\/i> (150), and bicentenary<\/i> (200) are used to mark significant dates in the history of cities and nations. Unlike those words, the adjectives centennial, sesquicentennial,<\/i> and bicentennial<\/i> are based on a modified form of the Latin noun annus<\/b>, \u201cyear.\u201d A millennium<\/i> (adjective millennial<\/i>) is a period of a thousand years. Even well-educated people often leave out an -n-<\/i> in spelling the word millennium<\/i>; don\u2019t confuse it with millenary<\/i>.<\/p>\r\n<\/i>The root of Latin singuli<\/b> (\u201cone at a time,\u201d E single<\/i>) was combined with the root plic- <\/b>(\u201cfold\u201d) to produce L simplex <\/b>(< *sin-plic-s<\/b>). So duplex<\/b>, triplex<\/b>, etc.[footnote]\u00a0In English as in Latin, twofold<\/em> (duplex<\/strong>) and threefold <\/em>(triplex<\/strong>) do not mean \u201cfolded twice\u201d and \u201cfolded three times.\u201d If you are being quite literal, a flat object folded twice has four parts, not two. Thus a large sheet of paper that early printers called a folio<\/em> (L folium<\/em>, \u201cleaf\u201d), became known as quarto<\/em>, if folded twice, and octavo<\/em>, if folded three times. In strict logic, Latin simplex<\/strong> (\u201conefold\u201d) has no fold at all.[\/footnote] The regular abstract nouns were simplic-itas <\/b>and duplic-itas <\/b>(E simplicity, duplicity, multiplicity<\/i>). In medieval Latin, the 3rd declension adjective simplex<\/b> developed a 2nd declension variant simplus<\/b>, source of E simple<\/i>. (So duplus<\/b>, triplus<\/b> > duple<\/i>, triple<\/i>.)<\/p>","rendered":"You will observe that there are a few English number words that closely reflect original Latin number words. These include duo<\/i>, cent<\/i> (along with percent<\/i>); prime, second, quart; <\/i>and single.<\/i> Modern month names, from September<\/i> to December<\/i>, are adapted without change from their Latin counterparts\u2014though there seems to be something wrong with the arithmetic of the Roman calendar. |