Mixing
How can you tell whether prefixed ‘in-’ is the preposition ‘in’ or Indo-European ‘in-’?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Background
The verb īnsum has the prefix in-. Prefixing in/in- to words, changes their meaning to ‘in’, ‘on’ et sim., or ‘un-’, _‘non’ et sim. (ɔ:¹ negation).² However, according to Wiktionary, the pronunciation of in changes in some context; this supported by Lewis.
As far as I understand, this pronunciation change – ɔ: from [ɪ] to [Ä©ËÂ] – only occurs where the prefix is not the preposition in, but the actual prefix in-. Even though sounding the same, they have different roots: When meaning ‘in(side)’, it is merely the preposition prefixed; when meaning ‘not’/‘[negation]’, it has the Indo-European origin [*nÌ¥-].5
Non of my grammars, however, even the very detailed grammar by Nils Sjöstrand (Gleerups forlag, Lund 1960) has any details on these two differences. The only thing I can find that is mildly relevant, is in Sjöstrand § 6.2, explaining the enlonging [I’m sorry, I am not sure what the correct linguistic term is] and nasalisation of vowels in front of ns and nf.
Question
This means that pronunciation alone is not a clue as to whether or not one is dealing with in prefixed, or the prefix in-, as they both will have their pronunciations changed based on which morphemes follow. How can you know whether you are dealing with the preposition or the prefix, and thus the correct meaning of the word?
Somewhat Related
- Understanding vowel quantity in fieri
- vowel length in “pro†before “fâ€Â
Notes
¹ This is not a smiley; it is the symbol meaning ‘that is’, ‘may be read as’ and similar.
² Egil Kraggerud & Bjørg Tosterud: Latinsk ordbok, Cappelen, Oslo 1998: ‘in i sammensetning’.
I have added the negation tag, but am unsure as to its relevance. Advice on this is appreciated. It could very well be that the tag details should be updated to include questions such as this one.
classical-latin vowel-quantity prefix proto-indo-european negation
asked 1 hour ago
Canned Man
10919
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Background
The verb īnsum has the prefix in-. Prefixing in/in- to words, changes their meaning to ‘in’, ‘on’ et sim., or ‘un-’, _‘non’ et sim. (ɔ:¹ negation).² However, according to Wiktionary, the pronunciation of in changes in some context; this supported by Lewis.
As far as I understand, this pronunciation change – ɔ: from [ɪ] to [Ä©ËÂ] – only occurs where the prefix is not the preposition in, but the actual prefix in-. Even though sounding the same, they have different roots: When meaning ‘in(side)’, it is merely the preposition prefixed; when meaning ‘not’/‘[negation]’, it has the Indo-European origin [*nÌ¥-].5
Non of my grammars, however, even the very detailed grammar by Nils Sjöstrand (Gleerups forlag, Lund 1960) has any details on these two differences. The only thing I can find that is mildly relevant, is in Sjöstrand § 6.2, explaining the enlonging [I’m sorry, I am not sure what the correct linguistic term is] and nasalisation of vowels in front of ns and nf.
Question
This means that pronunciation alone is not a clue as to whether or not one is dealing with in prefixed, or the prefix in-, as they both will have their pronunciations changed based on which morphemes follow. How can you know whether you are dealing with the preposition or the prefix, and thus the correct meaning of the word?
Somewhat Related
- Understanding vowel quantity in fieri
- vowel length in “pro†before “fâ€Â
Notes
¹ This is not a smiley; it is the symbol meaning ‘that is’, ‘may be read as’ and similar.
² Egil Kraggerud & Bjørg Tosterud: Latinsk ordbok, Cappelen, Oslo 1998: ‘in i sammensetning’.
I have added the negation tag, but am unsure as to its relevance. Advice on this is appreciated. It could very well be that the tag details should be updated to include questions such as this one.
classical-latin vowel-quantity prefix proto-indo-european negation
asked 1 hour ago
Canned Man
10919
1
I have never seen "ɔ:" meaning "that is" - where did you get it from?
– varro
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Background
The verb īnsum has the prefix in-. Prefixing in/in- to words, changes their meaning to ‘in’, ‘on’ et sim., or ‘un-’, _‘non’ et sim. (ɔ:¹ negation).² However, according to Wiktionary, the pronunciation of in changes in some context; this supported by Lewis.
As far as I understand, this pronunciation change – ɔ: from [ɪ] to [Ä©ËÂ] – only occurs where the prefix is not the preposition in, but the actual prefix in-. Even though sounding the same, they have different roots: When meaning ‘in(side)’, it is merely the preposition prefixed; when meaning ‘not’/‘[negation]’, it has the Indo-European origin [*nÌ¥-].5
Non of my grammars, however, even the very detailed grammar by Nils Sjöstrand (Gleerups forlag, Lund 1960) has any details on these two differences. The only thing I can find that is mildly relevant, is in Sjöstrand § 6.2, explaining the enlonging [I’m sorry, I am not sure what the correct linguistic term is] and nasalisation of vowels in front of ns and nf.
Question
This means that pronunciation alone is not a clue as to whether or not one is dealing with in prefixed, or the prefix in-, as they both will have their pronunciations changed based on which morphemes follow. How can you know whether you are dealing with the preposition or the prefix, and thus the correct meaning of the word?
Somewhat Related
- Understanding vowel quantity in fieri
- vowel length in “pro†before “fâ€Â
Notes
¹ This is not a smiley; it is the symbol meaning ‘that is’, ‘may be read as’ and similar.
² Egil Kraggerud & Bjørg Tosterud: Latinsk ordbok, Cappelen, Oslo 1998: ‘in i sammensetning’.
I have added the negation tag, but am unsure as to its relevance. Advice on this is appreciated. It could very well be that the tag details should be updated to include questions such as this one.
classical-latin vowel-quantity prefix proto-indo-european negation
asked 1 hour ago
Canned Man
10919
Background
The verb īnsum has the prefix in-. Prefixing in/in- to words, changes their meaning to ‘in’, ‘on’ et sim., or ‘un-’, _‘non’ et sim. (ɔ:¹ negation).² However, according to Wiktionary, the pronunciation of in changes in some context; this supported by Lewis.
As far as I understand, this pronunciation change – ɔ: from [ɪ] to [Ä©ËÂ] – only occurs where the prefix is not the preposition in, but the actual prefix in-. Even though sounding the same, they have different roots: When meaning ‘in(side)’, it is merely the preposition prefixed; when meaning ‘not’/‘[negation]’, it has the Indo-European origin [*nÌ¥-].5
Non of my grammars, however, even the very detailed grammar by Nils Sjöstrand (Gleerups forlag, Lund 1960) has any details on these two differences. The only thing I can find that is mildly relevant, is in Sjöstrand § 6.2, explaining the enlonging [I’m sorry, I am not sure what the correct linguistic term is] and nasalisation of vowels in front of ns and nf.
Question
This means that pronunciation alone is not a clue as to whether or not one is dealing with in prefixed, or the prefix in-, as they both will have their pronunciations changed based on which morphemes follow. How can you know whether you are dealing with the preposition or the prefix, and thus the correct meaning of the word?
Somewhat Related
- Understanding vowel quantity in fieri
- vowel length in “pro†before “fâ€Â
Notes
¹ This is not a smiley; it is the symbol meaning ‘that is’, ‘may be read as’ and similar.
² Egil Kraggerud & Bjørg Tosterud: Latinsk ordbok, Cappelen, Oslo 1998: ‘in i sammensetning’.
I have added the negation tag, but am unsure as to its relevance. Advice on this is appreciated. It could very well be that the tag details should be updated to include questions such as this one.
classical-latin vowel-quantity prefix proto-indo-european negation
classical-latin vowel-quantity prefix proto-indo-european negation
asked 1 hour ago
Canned Man
10919
asked 1 hour ago
Canned Man
10919
asked 1 hour ago
Canned Man
10919
asked 1 hour ago
Canned Man
10919
asked 1 hour ago
Canned Man
10919
10919
1
I have never seen "ɔ:" meaning "that is" - where did you get it from?
– varro
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1
I have never seen "ɔ:" meaning "that is" - where did you get it from?
– varro
1 hour ago
1
1
I have never seen "ɔ:" meaning "that is" - where did you get it from?
– varro
1 hour ago
I have never seen "ɔ:" meaning "that is" - where did you get it from?
– varro
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I don't think it's possible to distinguish in meaning "in" from PIE *en and in- meaning "not" from PIE *n̥ from pronunciation alone. It's well known that the /i/ in in- lengthens when followed by certain consonsant combinations such as "ns" and "nf", but as far as I know, that is purely phonetically determined and has nothing to do with the ancestral morpheme.
So, basically, there is no a priori way of distinguishing the two cases.
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,9631212
The vowel lengthening is supported by multiple grammars (e.g. Sjöstrand § 6.2.2), so I agree with you on that. But I would find it surprising if there are no grammarians who ever commented on this seeming (unless having knowledge of PIE, which they didn’t) incongruency. Could there perhaps be anything to gather from ancient sources? Your answer still deserves upvotes, for noting the lengthening in front of ns and nf, which learned about after reading your answer.
– Canned Man
1 hour ago
@CannedMan: what incongruency are you referring to? That the I in in can be short in some phonetic environments and long in others?
– varro
54 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The two prefixes are identical in form in all contexts, but the negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb.
answered 32 mins ago
sumelic
6,01011344
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I don't think it's possible to distinguish in meaning "in" from PIE *en and in- meaning "not" from PIE *n̥ from pronunciation alone. It's well known that the /i/ in in- lengthens when followed by certain consonsant combinations such as "ns" and "nf", but as far as I know, that is purely phonetically determined and has nothing to do with the ancestral morpheme.
So, basically, there is no a priori way of distinguishing the two cases.
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,9631212
The vowel lengthening is supported by multiple grammars (e.g. Sjöstrand § 6.2.2), so I agree with you on that. But I would find it surprising if there are no grammarians who ever commented on this seeming (unless having knowledge of PIE, which they didn’t) incongruency. Could there perhaps be anything to gather from ancient sources? Your answer still deserves upvotes, for noting the lengthening in front of ns and nf, which learned about after reading your answer.
– Canned Man
1 hour ago
@CannedMan: what incongruency are you referring to? That the I in in can be short in some phonetic environments and long in others?
– varro
54 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I don't think it's possible to distinguish in meaning "in" from PIE *en and in- meaning "not" from PIE *n̥ from pronunciation alone. It's well known that the /i/ in in- lengthens when followed by certain consonsant combinations such as "ns" and "nf", but as far as I know, that is purely phonetically determined and has nothing to do with the ancestral morpheme.
So, basically, there is no a priori way of distinguishing the two cases.
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,9631212
The vowel lengthening is supported by multiple grammars (e.g. Sjöstrand § 6.2.2), so I agree with you on that. But I would find it surprising if there are no grammarians who ever commented on this seeming (unless having knowledge of PIE, which they didn’t) incongruency. Could there perhaps be anything to gather from ancient sources? Your answer still deserves upvotes, for noting the lengthening in front of ns and nf, which learned about after reading your answer.
– Canned Man
1 hour ago
@CannedMan: what incongruency are you referring to? That the I in in can be short in some phonetic environments and long in others?
– varro
54 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I don't think it's possible to distinguish in meaning "in" from PIE *en and in- meaning "not" from PIE *n̥ from pronunciation alone. It's well known that the /i/ in in- lengthens when followed by certain consonsant combinations such as "ns" and "nf", but as far as I know, that is purely phonetically determined and has nothing to do with the ancestral morpheme.
So, basically, there is no a priori way of distinguishing the two cases.
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,9631212
I don't think it's possible to distinguish in meaning "in" from PIE *en and in- meaning "not" from PIE *n̥ from pronunciation alone. It's well known that the /i/ in in- lengthens when followed by certain consonsant combinations such as "ns" and "nf", but as far as I know, that is purely phonetically determined and has nothing to do with the ancestral morpheme.
So, basically, there is no a priori way of distinguishing the two cases.
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,9631212
edited 50 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,9631212
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,9631212
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,9631212
2,9631212
The vowel lengthening is supported by multiple grammars (e.g. Sjöstrand § 6.2.2), so I agree with you on that. But I would find it surprising if there are no grammarians who ever commented on this seeming (unless having knowledge of PIE, which they didn’t) incongruency. Could there perhaps be anything to gather from ancient sources? Your answer still deserves upvotes, for noting the lengthening in front of ns and nf, which learned about after reading your answer.
– Canned Man
1 hour ago
@CannedMan: what incongruency are you referring to? That the I in in can be short in some phonetic environments and long in others?
– varro
54 mins ago
add a comment |Â
The vowel lengthening is supported by multiple grammars (e.g. Sjöstrand § 6.2.2), so I agree with you on that. But I would find it surprising if there are no grammarians who ever commented on this seeming (unless having knowledge of PIE, which they didn’t) incongruency. Could there perhaps be anything to gather from ancient sources? Your answer still deserves upvotes, for noting the lengthening in front of ns and nf, which learned about after reading your answer.
– Canned Man
1 hour ago
@CannedMan: what incongruency are you referring to? That the I in in can be short in some phonetic environments and long in others?
– varro
54 mins ago
The vowel lengthening is supported by multiple grammars (e.g. Sjöstrand § 6.2.2), so I agree with you on that. But I would find it surprising if there are no grammarians who ever commented on this seeming (unless having knowledge of PIE, which they didn’t) incongruency. Could there perhaps be anything to gather from ancient sources? Your answer still deserves upvotes, for noting the lengthening in front of ns and nf, which learned about after reading your answer.
– Canned Man
1 hour ago
The vowel lengthening is supported by multiple grammars (e.g. Sjöstrand § 6.2.2), so I agree with you on that. But I would find it surprising if there are no grammarians who ever commented on this seeming (unless having knowledge of PIE, which they didn’t) incongruency. Could there perhaps be anything to gather from ancient sources? Your answer still deserves upvotes, for noting the lengthening in front of ns and nf, which learned about after reading your answer.
– Canned Man
1 hour ago
@CannedMan: what incongruency are you referring to? That the I in in can be short in some phonetic environments and long in others?
– varro
54 mins ago
@CannedMan: what incongruency are you referring to? That the I in in can be short in some phonetic environments and long in others?
– varro
54 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The two prefixes are identical in form in all contexts, but the negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb.
answered 32 mins ago
sumelic
6,01011344
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The two prefixes are identical in form in all contexts, but the negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb.
answered 32 mins ago
sumelic
6,01011344
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The two prefixes are identical in form in all contexts, but the negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb.
answered 32 mins ago
sumelic
6,01011344
The two prefixes are identical in form in all contexts, but the negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb.
answered 32 mins ago
sumelic
6,01011344
answered 32 mins ago
sumelic
6,01011344
answered 32 mins ago
sumelic
6,01011344
answered 32 mins ago
sumelic
6,01011344
6,01011344
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7466%2fhow-can-you-tell-whether-prefixed-in-is-the-preposition-in-or-indo-european%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
I have never seen "ɔ:" meaning "that is" - where did you get it from?
– varro
1 hour ago