I’ve been searching for something like this to explain all the prefixes English speakers use daily, and finally found one. I’m wondering how accurate it is, though, as un- and in- both use the same word ‘not’ for their translations.
Well, in- is the Latinate form of negation. Un- is from Old English.
are you saying the English began to use ‘un-’ as a synonomic replacement for ‘in-’?
The Latin influence would have come later (Battle of Hastings and all that), so the un- would be the older of the two in English.
Perhaps in some words. Both English and Latin come from the same root language known as Proto-Indo-European. PIE, as it is often called had a prefix of negation, ne, meaning not. The forces molding Latin turned it into in-, the forces working on English turned it into un-. Some words may, at some point, have jumped from in- to un- by speakers attempting to create parallels but mostly you can just use it as a linguistic clue that negative un- words stem from Old English while negative in- words are latinate.
So, it seems like your words indicate the webpage is correct and they are synonomous. Am I right?
Yes, the root of both in- and un- ultimately derive from the same source, as you state.
The OP can delve into the etymology a bit more on the website etymonline.com.
Here’s the entry for the un- prefix
Note also that your list also has the an- prefix, which is the Greek version of in-/un- that derives ultimately from PIE ne.
Wow, all great info. Can someone scan the webpage provided though and give me their opinion of it as a whole, please?
Yes, I don’t see anything obviously incorrect on that page. There are many prefixes for negation in English: in- (il-, ir-, im-) , un-, a-/an-, dis-, and non-.
If you’re looking for a list of Latin prefixes, the only problem I see is that the page is about affixes in English in general, not specifically Latin ones.
Thanks.
So, if I keep searching will I find the trend to be that there a lot of synonymic prefixes like the ones you just mentioned? I was expecting to see fine differences in current definitions and not merely historical etymological differences.
Off the top of my head, I don’t know if there’s going to be a lot of affixes that come from different roots, but I suspect there should be some more that are synonymous. For example, “-ness” coming from O.E. and “-ity” coming from Latin, both of which form abstract nouns from adjectives, loosely meaning “the quality of being _____.” Also, “counter-” and “anti-” (for example, like in the word “counterclockwise” vs “anticlockwise,” both acceptable English terms.)
Off the top of my head, I don’t know if there’s going to be a lot of affixes that come from different roots, but I suspect there should be some more that are synonymous. For example, “-ness” coming from O.E. and “-ity” coming from Latin, both of which form abstract nouns from adjectives, loosely meaning “the quality of being _____.” Also, “counter-” and “anti-” (for example, like in the word “counterclockwise” vs “anticlockwise,” both acceptable English terms.)
You’ll also find the number prefixes have at least two forms: the Latin and the Greek. For example, bi- (Latin) and di- (Greek). Penta- (Greek, “five”) Quint- (Latin), etc.
un- and in- are not fully synonymous.
While un- and in- can each be used to negate adjectives, only un- can be used to negate verbs. The un- verb, in its past participle form, can then be used as an adjective.
This leads to the situation where un- has two meanings;
a) describing a state that is not currently the case (an uncooked dinner, an untidy house). This is synonymous with in-.
b) describing a state having been changed or reverted (an unravelled knot, an unveiled statue). This is synonymous with dis-.
Some cases are ambiguous: is an unwrapped present one that was wrapped and has now been opened? Or one that has never been wrapped? Similarly for untied, undone, etc.