Re: Another English History Question (YAEHQ?)

I can't comment on the diachronic situation, but I do
know that the French reflex of Latin inducere would
have been *enduire...like Latin conducere > conduire
Another possibility would have been *enduisir, like
the contrast between Old French plaire and plaisir
both from < placere. It seems weird that Merriam
Webster would say that the French was inducer, but
maybe Anglo-Norman is somewhat different.


 -elliott

--- "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> wrote:

> In modern English, you can induce a current or
> induct a member; either act
> is an example of induction.  (If you induce a
> reaction, though, that's
> generally an inducement instead.)   Similarly, you
> can deduce a fact or
> deduct an expense, and either way you have a
> deduction.
>
> Synchronically, these appear to be cases of
> derivational morphology
> triggering collisions in the forms of otherwise
> distinct words.  But what is
> the diachronic situation?  Did these pairs originate
> as the same word and
> then diverge along semantic grounds?  Or perhaps the
> two were borrowed at
> different times and/or from different languages with
> cognate forms?  (Say,
> oh, I dunno, just to pick a pair at random, Latin
> and French)?
>
> Or did we get similar results from different paths?
> Based on the etymology
> in M-W, the bilingual answer is correct in the case
> of "induce/"induct":
> both ultimately derive from Latin "inducere", but
> the former entered English
> only after becoming French "inducer", while the
> latter came directly from
> the Latin past participle "inductus".  But
> apparently "deduce" and "deduct"
> both came directly from Latin, one from the
> infinitive and the other from
> the participle, with no French involvement..  So
> were both meanings valid
> glosses of the Latin as well?
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com