Re: USAGE: Circumfixes

On 8 May 2004 Trebor Jung <treborjung@...> wrote:

> What about, e.g., 'embolden'?
  My dictionary knows a lexeme 'to bolden'. In my analysis, '-en'
is a verb-forming suffix (mainly used with adjectives), while
'en/em-' is a resultative (terminative) verbal prefix. Cf. 'to
bolden' to (try to) make sombody bold (we don't know the actual
result), 'to embolden' to make sombody bold (with success: he/she
became really bold), cf. similar Hungarian 'ba'tor' bold >
'ba'tor.i't' > to bold.en > 'fel.ba'tor.i't' to em.bold.en.

  The independency of prefix 'en/em-' and suffix '-en' is supported
also by the fact that they are used also separately, e.g. 'enlarge,
enlace, enrage' etc. as well as 'broaden, lengthen, shorten' etc.


> And 'exemplify', what would this form be considered as? It is
> formed from the root 'example', modified by ablaut _and_ the ending
> '-ify'.
  I think here's the root is 'exempl-'. I'm possibly wrong because
I'm not an Anglicist, but I think the word 'example' breaks the
"etymology rule" of the English orthography. It should be rather
'exemple' (cf. French 'exemple') but the nasal in the last syllable
was pronounced long due to the French stress rules and the
'example' form reflects this long vowel.

  In derivations as 'exemplar, exemplify' etc. the syllable 'empl'
is not word-final, therefore its vowel didn't became long. Thus
there's an absence of "Ablaut" (mutation) in 'exemplify'.

  IHMO the borrowings should be distinguished from inner English
developments. E.g. 'elongate' is a simple domestication of the
Latin verb 'elongare' with a change of meaning due to associative
etymology.

Reply