English prefix

English prefixes are affixes (i.e., bound morphemes that provide lexical 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 suffix ''-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.

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:

: nbsp;''un'' [ [ ''lock'' sub>verb ''able'' .html" ;"title="nbsp;[ ''lock'' .html" ;"title="nbsp;''un'' [ [ ''lock'' ">nbsp;''un'' [ [ ''lock'' sub>verb ''able'' ">nbsp;[ ''lock'' .html" ;"title="nbsp;''un'' [ [ ''lock'' ">nbsp;''un'' [ [ ''lock'' sub>verb ''able'' sub>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:

: nbsp;[ ''un'' [ ''lock'' sub>verb .html" ;"title="nbsp;''un'' [ ''lock'' .html" ;"title="nbsp;[ ''un'' [ ''lock'' ">nbsp;[ ''un'' [ ''lock'' sub>verb ">nbsp;''un'' [ ''lock'' .html" ;"title="nbsp;[ ''un'' [ ''lock'' ">nbsp;[ ''un'' [ ''lock'' sub>verb sub>verb ''able'' ]_adj

Only certain verbs or nouns can be used to form a new verb having the opposite meaning. In particular, using verbs describing an irreversible action produces words often considered nonsense, e.g. ''unkill, unspend, unlose, unring''. These words may nevertheless be in occasional use for humorous or other effect.

Changes in lexical category

Unlike derivational suffixes, English derivational prefixes typically do not change the lexical category of the base (and are so 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 a few 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 analyzed as a combination of a dependent affix and an independent base, such as those found in words like ''boy-hood'' or ''un-just''. Following Marchand (1969), these types of words are formed by ''native'' word-formation processes.

Other words in English (and also in French and German) are formed via ''foreign'' word-formation processes, particularly processes seen in Greek and Latin word-formation. 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), as well as in inkhorn terms coined in the 17th and 18th centuries. 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.

In some analytic frameworks, such neo-classical prefixes are excluded from analyses of English derivation on the grounds that they are not analyzable according to a mostly synchronic (that is, relatively productive or easily recognizable and relating to present-day idioms) English (that is, "native") basis. Conceptualized thus, anglicized neo-classical English words such as ''deceive'' are not analyzed by Marchand 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 analyzed as such, as "native" Latin components in the Latin language).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." Similarly, pairs such as ''defend/defense'' and ''double (or duple)/duplicity'' are not considered morphologically related in Marchand's treatment of English word formation and are thus excluded too, though they are regarded as derivatives of the shared roots in Jespersen's and Koizul's, while in others, they may be seen as allomorphs or variants (like ''deep/depth'', a pair formed of Germanic components). However, not all foreign words are unanalyzable according to such an English basis: some foreign elements have been nativized and 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-'', ''col-'', ''con-'', and ''cor-''); and ''ex-'' as in ''ex-soldier'', which derives from the Latin ''ex-''.

Initial combining forms vs prefixes

* Combining form

List of English prefixes

Native

Neo-classical

Archaic

See also

* Number prefix
* English grammar
* English compound
* Affix
* List of Greek and Latin roots in English

Notes

{{reflist

External links

Chart of English Language Roots

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.
* Bauer, Laurie; Lieber, Rochelle; Plag, Ingo (2013). ''The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology''. Oxford, UK: Oxford 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.

Prefixes
Prefixes