| | ::::: Well, the prefix was originally {{term||bi-}}, then became {{term||be-}} in later Old English, was restored to {{term||bi-}}, {{term||by-}} in Middle English, and then changed back to {{term||be-}} in Modern English; but yes, it's the same prefix, in the same way that {{term|becrafian|lang=ang}} and {{term|becrave|lang=en}} are the same words. Nevertheless, those categories (as I understand them) are meant only for those words which were formed thus ''in the languages in question'', irrespective of how artificial the chronological divide between them is. Consider {{term|intempestive|lang=en}}: it derives from the Latin {{term|intempestivus|intempestīvus|lang=la}}, which itself derives from {{term|in-|lang=la}} + {{term|tempestivus|tempestīvus|lang=la}}; it is equivalent to {{term|in-|lang=en}} + {{term|tempestive|lang=en}}; would it be accurate to categorise {{term||intempestive}} in [[:Category:English words prefixed with in-]]? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ ([[User:Doremítzwr|U]] · [[User talk:Doremítzwr|T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doremítzwr|C]]) ~ 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | | ::::: Well, the prefix was originally {{term||bi-}}, then became {{term||be-}} in later Old English, was restored to {{term||bi-}}, {{term||by-}} in Middle English, and then changed back to {{term||be-}} in Modern English; but yes, it's the same prefix, in the same way that {{term|becrafian|lang=ang}} and {{term|becrave|lang=en}} are the same words. Nevertheless, those categories (as I understand them) are meant only for those words which were formed thus ''in the languages in question'', irrespective of how artificial the chronological divide between them is. Consider {{term|intempestive|lang=en}}: it derives from the Latin {{term|intempestivus|intempestīvus|lang=la}}, which itself derives from {{term|in-|lang=la}} + {{term|tempestivus|tempestīvus|lang=la}}; it is equivalent to {{term|in-|lang=en}} + {{term|tempestive|lang=en}}; would it be accurate to categorise {{term||intempestive}} in [[:Category:English words prefixed with in-]]? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ ([[User:Doremítzwr|U]] · [[User talk:Doremítzwr|T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doremítzwr|C]]) ~ 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
| | :::::: We had a similar issue a few months ago when another user was doing the same: unlinking the lang args in prefix and suffix templates. The concensus was that we wanted them to count, as the words are continually re-analyzed as stem + affix in each period, remaining separate components, and do not blend into a single unit, as some borrowed words do (e.g. {{term|rapport}}). [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | | :::::: We had a similar issue a few months ago when another user was doing the same: unlinking the lang args in prefix and suffix templates. The concensus was that we wanted them to count, as the words are continually re-analyzed as stem + affix in each period, remaining separate components, and do not blend into a single unit, as some borrowed words do (e.g. {{term|rapport}}). [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
| − | ::::::: "would it be accurate to categorise {{term||intempestive}} in [[:Category:English words prefixed with in-]]? " I would say Yes (albeit there are at least two distinct prefixes with this form). Because the Latin prefix {{term|in-||not}} has been borrowed into English and is now and English prefix. The word can thus be analyzed as {{prefix|in|t1=not, un-|tempestive|t2=timely}}. [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 18:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | + | ::::::: "would it be accurate to categorise {{term||intempestive}} in [[:Category:English words prefixed with in-]]? " I would say Yes! (albeit there are at least two distinct prefixes with this form). Because the Latin prefix {{term|in-||not}} has been borrowed into English and is now an English prefix. The word can thus be analyzed as {{prefix|in|t1=not, un-|tempestive|t2=timely}}. [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 18:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
