How can you tell whether prefixed ‘in-’ is the preposition ‘in’ or Indo-European ‘in-’?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












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 [ĩː] – 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 [*n̥-].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 “f”

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.










share|improve this question

















  • 1




    I have never seen "ɔ:" meaning "that is" - where did you get it from?
    – varro
    1 hour ago














up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












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 [ĩː] – 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 [*n̥-].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 “f”

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.










share|improve this question

















  • 1




    I have never seen "ɔ:" meaning "that is" - where did you get it from?
    – varro
    1 hour ago












up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1






1





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 [ĩː] – 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 [*n̥-].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 “f”

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.










share|improve this question













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 [ĩː] – 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 [*n̥-].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 “f”

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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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












  • 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










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.






share|improve this answer






















  • 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
    59 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
    49 mins ago


















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.






share|improve this answer




















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "644"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    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






























    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.






    share|improve this answer






















    • 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
      59 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
      49 mins ago















    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.






    share|improve this answer






















    • 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
      59 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
      49 mins ago













    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.






    share|improve this answer














    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.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 45 mins ago

























    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
      59 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
      49 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
      59 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
      49 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
    59 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
    59 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
    49 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
    49 mins ago











    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.






    share|improve this answer
























      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.






      share|improve this answer






















        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.






        share|improve this answer












        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.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 27 mins ago









        sumelic

        6,01011344




        6,01011344



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?