# Rate this Latin Prefixes Webpage on Accuracy **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 30, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386 "2012-04-30T03:27:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ClarenceClancy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df788c/32.png) [@ClarenceClancy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClarenceClancy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/1 "2012-04-30T03:27:06Z")
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. > **[Chart of English Language Roots - PrefixSuffix.com](http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php)** > > PrefixSuffix.com - English Word Roots Reference || Prefix, Suffix, Prefixes, Suffixes, root words, word roots, language games ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/2 "2012-04-30T03:46:54Z")
Well, in- is the Latinate form of negation. Un- is from Old English. ---
**Author:** ![ClarenceClancy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df788c/32.png) [@ClarenceClancy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClarenceClancy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/3 "2012-04-30T03:48:53Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > 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-’? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/4 "2012-04-30T03:50:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/5 "2012-04-30T03:55:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ClarenceClancy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df788c/32.png) [@ClarenceClancy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClarenceClancy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/6 "2012-04-30T03:57:39Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/7 "2012-04-30T03:57:49Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > 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. 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](http://etymonline.com). [Here’s the entry for the un- prefix](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=un-&allowed_in_frame=0) [Here it is for in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&allowed_in_frame=0) Note also that your list also has the an- prefix, which is the Greek version of in-/un- that derives ultimately from PIE _ne_. ---
**Author:** ![ClarenceClancy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df788c/32.png) [@ClarenceClancy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClarenceClancy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/8 "2012-04-30T04:00:37Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > 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](http://etymonline.com). > > [Here’s the entry for the un- prefix](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=un-&allowed_in_frame=0) > > [Here it is for in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&allowed_in_frame=0) > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/9 "2012-04-30T04:01:27Z")
> [@ClarenceClancy](#): > > So, it seems like your words indicate the webpage is correct and they are synonomous. Am I right? 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. ---
**Author:** ![ClarenceClancy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df788c/32.png) [@ClarenceClancy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClarenceClancy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/10 "2012-04-30T04:04:21Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > 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 prefixes 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. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/11 "2012-04-30T04:13:39Z")
> [@ClarenceClancy](#): > > 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.) ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/12 "2012-04-30T04:16:05Z")
> [@ClarenceClancy](#): > > 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.) 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. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-latin-prefixes-webpage-on-accuracy/620386/13 "2012-04-30T04:48:34Z")
> [@ClarenceClancy](#): > > 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. 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.