In the book "Building an effective vocabulary" I learned that words like "produce, infer" have been built of meaningful parts. However, I think since most of them come from Latin, their meaning is not evident to Anglophones. Please tell me about it.

And my question is that "conjugate" seems to be also comprised of meaningful parts. If so, can you please write their meanings.

I guess it's con+junc+ate

Thanks

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Alijsh,

Many verbs in Latin consist of a preverbal particle (which is usually related to a preposition) and a root, followed by verbal suffices (for categories like tense and mood) and endings (for categories like person and number). (This holds true for verbal forms in other Indo-Europeaan language groups, e.g., Indic, Greek, Hittite, Germanic, Slavic, and Baltic.) A good English dictionary, like one of these two online, American-Heritage and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, will have an etymolgical section for almost every entry where the word is traced back to its language of origin and its morphology is analyzed. Some of the preverbal particles that Latin uses (and which can be found in many loanwords into English) are: ab- 'away', ad- 'to, towards', com- '(together) with', de- 'away from', in- 'in, into, on', re- 'again'. There are others, and some like com- change form depending on the type of sound that the following root begins with (e.g., companion ~ conjugate). As for the root part of conjugate, that is from Latin jugum 'yoke' (cf. Sanskrit yuga).

Of course, I've simplified things a bit. The meaning of the perverbal particles is many, and some are even contradictory: e.g., in- can mean 'in, into' on' as in induction (literally 'leading into'), but also 'not' as in inefficient ('not efficient'), and finally also '(intensifying)' as in inflammable ('more flammable'). As you learn your Latin vocabulary, try to find words in English that were borrowed from those vocabulary items.

Finally, many verbs in English of Latin origins are adapted from one particular form in Latin, the past passive particle: the verb for conjugate would be listed in a Latin dictionary by four (usually) forms: first person singular present indicative active conjūgō 'I join', infinitive conjūgāre 'to join', first person singular present perfect indicative active conjūgāvī 'I have joined', and past passive particple conjūgātus 'joined'. It is that final fourth form that was borrowed into English. That is why many English verbs of Latin origin end in -ate from -ātus. Not all verbs though, e.g., other verbs of Latin origin that came through French do not.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

Don't you just love it when zmj gives you a paragraph of dense, scholarly language (complete with eight parenthetical asides), calling for the utmost care in reading -- and then tells you, "Of course, I've simplified things a bit."

Invariably, that's a cue announcing, "There's something valuable here."

simplified things

Sorry to sound disingenuous, but I didn't want Alijsh to think that the Latin verbal system was simple. For more information, two books are invaluable: Carl Darling Buck Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (1933) and Andrew L Sihler New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (1995). Buck [1866-1955] taught Sanskrit and IE comparative philology at the University of Chiacago; Sihler [1941- ] teaches linguistics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Buck is also well-known for his superb Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages (1949) which is still—deservedly—in print. And, thanks for the kind words.

Thanks a world dear zmježd for the great information. I understand it well since Persian is also in the level of Latin and we use and know the different meanings of preverbal particles.

I decided to buy one of the dictionaries you mentioned. Which one do you recommend, Heritage or Webster?

Thanks again

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Alijsh,

You're welcome, Alijsh. Both of the dictionaries are good. M-W Collegiate is cheaper and easier to find, but it's has less entries than A-H. Here's the Amazon links: M-W and A-H And, note, as I said above, both are available online. There are also the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Third International Dictionary. You might want to look them over in a university library or bookstore to see which one you like the best and is within your budget.

Thanks dear zmježd. I think I have seen "American Heritage" available on CD/DVD. If Webster was also available on CD, I'll buy it in this form.

I think I have got a point from what you wrote: in English, "-ate" has found new meaning and functions (that are not found in Latin). And I think it also applies to most of other Latin loan-affixes (loan-word vs. loan-affix ) and loan-roots. Am I right?

I think I have got a point from what you wrote: in English, "-ate" has found new meaning and functions (that are not found in Latin). And I think it also applies to most of other Latin loan-affixes (loan-word vs. loan-affix Big Grin) and loan-roots. Am I right?

Yes, -ate has become a morpheme in English, being stuck on words to make jocular and non-standard words: e.g., justificate, orientate, etc. Same with dis- and re- being used as preverbal particles, e.g., disrespect (though respect (re- + spectus ppl. of respicio 'to regard') is a Latin loanword, disrespect was coined in English by natives and did not exist in Latin), redo (do is not a loanword from Latin, but was inherited from Old English, cf. German tun).

I decided to buy one of the dictionaries you mentioned. Which one do you recommend, Heritage or Webster?

If I were you, I'd bookmark the on-line versions of both AHD and M-W (plus one-look), use them both for a while, and see which is more comfortable to you.

Let me share a personal experience. As I sit at my computer, writing this, my copy of the American Heritage Dictionary is on a shelf right next to me. It's so near that can reach it without taking a step, whenever dictionary-questions come up on this board.

And yet I find I almost never reach for it; instead, my habit is to go to the on-line version. Even with the bound version close at hand, somehow the on-line version almost always wins out.

You may have the same experience!