In English, we can use a number of prefixes on adjectives to form their opposites. The following pairs come to mind as examples:
typical | atypical |
hydrous | anhydrous |
social | antisocial |
honest | dishonest |
legal | illegal |
possible | impossible |
active | inactive |
regular | irregular |
existent | nonexistent |
kind | unkind |
In most cases, these prefixes are not interchangeable, so we do not have *unlegal or *apossible, for instance. Of course, fluent speakers have no problem in using the right prefix for the right word, as more than often, the negative adjectives are learned word by word. But that should not stop us from pausing and asking, “Are these prefixes randomly matched with the words?” The lesson from Why is probible not possible and possable not probable? tells us that while not everything has a reason, most things indeed do not come from nothing. So the question that we should really ask is “What are the differences between these prefixes?”
Intuitively, some (two groups) of these prefixes are obviously related, and indeed they are. The first group consists of a- and an-, and the second consists of il-, im-, in- and ir-. In each group, the variations have the same meaning, but are superficially different only because the initial sounds in the stem words are different. They are said to be phonologically conditioned. In the former group, an- is used when the following adjective begins with a vowel or an h, whereas a- is used otherwise. This can be illustrated by the following examples:
chromatic | achromatic |
morphous | amorphous |
symmetric | asymmetric |
typical | atypical |
aerobic | anaerobic |
hydrous | anhydrous |
oxic | anoxic |
The latter group also follows very similar conditions. You may find out exactly how they are conditioned by listing out many words that start with these prefixes, and analyze how the following sounds affect them.
Having recognized that some of the prefixes are in fact no more than variations of the same prefix, our list of negative prefixes can be reduced to the following:
- a- (an-)
- anti-
- dis-
- in- (il-, im-, ir-)
- non-
- un-
We can survey these prefixes on three dimensions, namely their etymology (origin), semantics (meaning) and morphology (what words can the prefixes be used with, and how productive they are).
Origin | Meaning | Productivity | |
a- (an-) | Greek | not, without | medium |
anti- | Greek | against | high |
dis- | Latin | not, opposite of | low |
in- (il-, im-, ir-) | Latin | not, opposite of | medium |
non- | Latin | not | high |
un- | Germanic | not, opposite of | high |
Etymology
Tracing back to their histories, the prefixes a- and anti- are both of Greek origin. This also explains why the very majority of the words that can use these prefixes also have their origin from Greek (e.g. chromatic, morphous, symmetric, typical, aerobic, hydrous, oxic).
The prefixes dis-, in-, and non- are Latinate in origin. Similarly, words that go along with dis- and in- are mostly from Latin/French. They include words like dishonest, discourteous, dissimiliar, inaccessible, inaccurate, insignificant, to name a few. On the other hand, while non- is also commonly associated with Latinate/French words such as non-negotiable, non-judgmental and non-specific, it has become more productive than the other Latinate prefixes. This prefix can form negative adjectives with many present participles and past participles regardless of the origin of the stem word, such as non-smoking, non-aligned, non-caffeinated, and even with participle phrases, such as non-profit making, non-man made. Another interesting fact about non- is that it can often form neagtive adjectives by joining verbs, to express the meaning that the thing described does not perform the action described by the verb. Examples include non-stop, non-shrink, non-slip.
Un- is a prefix native to English. It is mostly attached to native words to form negative adjectives, such as unfriendly, unhappy, unfair, and so on. But it can also be attached to certain Latinate words, giving unable, unsympathetic, unconscious, unreasonable, etc. Like non-, it is a productive prefix and is ready to form adjectives with present and past participles, giving words like unfeeling, undecided, unjustified, etc.
Semantics
Even though we may simplistically say all the prefixes carry a “negative, opposite” force, there are in fact subtle differences between their meanings.
Most obviously, anti- does not merely mean “not”, but “against”. So if someone is antisexist, it is not just the case that the person is not sexist, but he or she is in fact against sexism.
The Greek prefix a-, on the other hand, carries a greater sense of “without”, “lack of” and is therefore often used with adjectives which originate from nouns. The words chromatic (color), morphous (form), symmetric (symmetry), typical (impression), aerobic (air), hydrous (water), oxic (oxygen) all fit into this description.
The three prefixes dis-, in- and un- are very similar in meaning. They often denote a state on the opposite end of the scale. Therefore if somebody is impolite, he is not just being “not polite”, but in fact “rude”. If something is untrue, it is false. They are distinguished from non-, which expresses a simple negation. If something is nonreligious, it is not necessarily antireligious or irreligious, but just has nothing to do with religion.
As un- is a very productive negating prefix in English, it actually covers a wider range of meanings than other prefixes. Many words can form negations with both non- and un-, which gives near synonymous pairs like nonreligious / unreligious, nonproductive / unproductive, and so on. But quoting American Heritage Dictionary, they differ in that:
Non- picks out the set of things that are not in the category denoted by the stem to which it is attached, whereas un- picks out properties unlike those of the typical examples of the category. Thus nonmilitary personnel are those who are not members of the military, whereas someone who is unmilitary is unlike a typical soldier in dress, habits, or attitudes.
Morphology
As discussed above, what words can go along with a certain prefix has a lot to do with the etymology of that prefix. The prefix a- is more than often only used with Greek stems, and the stems more than often are adjectives that describe the properties of certain objects (nouns). This restriction makes the prefix less productive in Modern English, as apart from technical terms, new words are seldom coined from Greek.
Anti- is very productive and particularly so with adjectives that describe ideologies and attitudes, the majority of which are formed with the suffix -ist, such as sexist, racist, communist, capitalist, theist, so on and so forth. It can also be attached to any noun to form an adjective, such as anti-Microsoft, anti-government, etc.
Dis- is neither productive in modern English nor does it occur in a lot of words. Some adjectives that are seemingly formed by attaching the adjectival prefix dis- are in fact formed in a different process. For instance, disoriented is actually a past participle of the verb disorient, which consists of the verbal prefix dis- and the verb stem orient.
The prefix in- appears in a lot of words of Latin or French origins, but it is usually restrained to these existing words. Non-, as illustrated above, is rather productive and can be used variously to form negative adjectives.
The native prefix un- is probably the most productive of all in the above list. It can be used with participles and even participle phrases like unheard-of. And when new words are coined, it is usually the preferred prefix, thus we have ungooglable and unhackable. In fact, it actually took over the role of in- as the default negative prefix a long time ago. Since around the Renaissance, many words of Latin, French or Greek origins have formed their negative forms with un-, giving adjectives like unconscious, unconditional, unfortunate, unsympathetic, and so forth. This also explains those pairs which use different prefixes in the nominal and the adjectival counterparts, like inability / unable, inequality / unequal, injustice / unjust, and instability / unstable. In each of these pairs, the noun existed in Latin and was simply borrowed into English, whereas the negative adjective was later formed by attaching the prefix un- to the existing adjectival form. (cf. French inégalité / inégale, injustice / injuste, instabilité / instable)
How come I never find any thing on liglish about the negative prefix ‘de’? If you find anything, could you tell me through email.
Thanks
Thanks to Lili for reminding me of this prefix.
As you see here I’m concerned about the negative prefixes on adjectives only. It’s true that in some sense, de– is also a negative prefix, but it can only be used on verbs (eg. decompose) or nouns (eg. demerit), and I guess that’s why I missed it in my discussion.
The English de– comes from Latin dē– or in a few cases dis– (via French). It is originally a preposition meaning “from” or “of” (cf. French, Spanish ‘de‘ or Italian ‘di‘), which is then used as a prefix meaning “away from”, “out of”.
“decaffeinated coffe” comes to my mind when I see “non-caffeinated” in the article on one hand and the prefix “de-” on the other… quite a common word for lots of us 🙂 is there any difference in meaning between decaf and “non-caf”?
Morphologically decaffeinated and non-caffeinated come from two different processes:
decaffeinated: [adj [v de-caffeinate] -d]
non-caffeinated: [adj non- [adj caffeinate-d] ]
In plain English, that means decaffeinated is the past participle (used as an adjective) of the verb “decaffeinate”, while non-caffeinated is the adjectival opposite of the adjective “caffeinated”, which is the past participle of the assumed verb “caffeinate”.
In terms of their semantics, because decaffeinated comes from the verb “decaffeinate” (to take caffeine away from something), it implies that the object concerned contains caffeine normally, whereas non-caffeinated does not have such implications. This can be seen from the difference between “decaffeinated drinks” and “non-caffeinated drinks”. The former refers to coffee, tea and other drinks which normally contain caffeine, but have been decaffeinated by chemical processes. The later simply refers to drinks which do not contain caffeine.
Awesome post, simply superb…. thanks for helping to understand when to use which prefix…
GOOD WEELLL THX 😈
this site is very helpful…thanks guys 🙂
k BIEN!!!! 👿 😐 😐 ➡ 😯 🙂 😕 😎 👿 😀 💡 😳 😛 🙄 😉 😥 😮 😆 😡 🙁 ❗ ❓
Many thanks for this information! It’s very useful! 😮
Where can I find some additional info about negative prefixes. I really need in it. Could you tell me through email.
Thank you in advance.
I’ve got a question: “un-, in-, im-, il-, ir-” – are these allomorphs of one morpheme? Or not? I’ ve no idea how to prove it… I need this answer very much. Please, give me a piece of information through e-mail.
Thank you in advance.
I have the same question as ‘alfirma’
Please, give us some respond.
alfima & rata_hono:
Not exactly. While “in-, im-, ir- and il” are indeed allomorphs of the same morpheme, “un-” is a different morpheme. We can prove this by showing that prefixes in the first group are in complementary distribution, i.e. they are conditioned by their morphophonological environment; and “in-” and “un-” are in contrastive distribution, i.e. there exist contrastive minimal pairs.
To illustrate this, we can first list out all the words which begin with the prefix “in-, im-, ir-, il-“, and consider their immediate environment. Then we will find that all words having the prefix “il-” come from a stem beginning with “l”, e.g. illegal, illiterate, illegible, illegitimate, and so on. Similar all words having the prefix “ir-” have a stem beginning with “r”, e.g. irregular, irreversible, irrelevant, etc. All words having “im-” have a stem beginning with a bilabial consonant, e.g. immortal, impossible, imbalanced, etc. And lastly “in-” can form words with any other stems. Since their conditioning environments do not overlap, they are said to be in complementary distribution and they are all allomorphs of the same morpheme /in-/ (represented by the most general allomorph [in-])
On the other hand, you can try and you’ll find that there are no rules conditioning the occurrences of “un-” and “in-“. They both can appear before vowels: unable, inadequate; before stops: unthinkable, intangible; before fricatives: unstoppable, insatiable; and so on. There are even a few minimal pairs where the use of a different prefix changes the meaning of the word, such as unreligious vs. irreligious. Therefore they are said to be in contrastive distribution and are different morphemes. Moreover, since we know that these two prefixes come from different sources historically, it is unlikely that they are allomorphs of the same morpheme.
Thank you very VERY much!
Many thanks for this helpful piece of information!
Thank yuo very muich, I appreciate, for helping mie.
heyyy thanks for helping mehh out i really appreciate it muahh 😀
thx 4r good information that could help any person to learn .
we hope to conact with all the new . 😉
Hi there.
Thanks for the info. re: “in-“, “im-“, “ir-” and “il-“. But I need one further piece of information.
I have been asked which allomorph, from among “in-“, “im-“, “ir-” and “il-“, is the “underlying representation of the morpheme”, and from what I’ve read here the answer is “in-“. But then I’ve been asked for the ONE RULE to derive the other allomorphs, and from what you’ve written, I can’t really determine one single rule.
The “ir-” goes with stems that begin with “r”, the “il-” goes with stems that begin with “l”, the “im-” goes with stems that begin with a bilabial consonant and the “in-” goes with “everything else”-(except for those stems that take “un-“.) What might the “ONE RULE” be, do you think???
Any insight you have would be most appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
Lindsay
heloo every body rlly i know every one in this mw8ee3 dnt understand me ut i hope now to tell me any think you hope with u and rlly i know this language not every body talk in this english coz this language just u talk smart like me
anyway i dnt ope to be active and rlly it’s important 2 me
and i hope t8ldoone sry just this world in arabic coz i like it
thnx 4 calking bye
Hello! I am 15 , and I m from Brazil!
Tomorrow I’ve a test in my school and you helped me a lot! Thanks .
😆 😆
tnx 4 dis info.,><
hi ! there
😆
I would like to learn Prefixes of Negation/ opposition
please help me to understand that
please giving example and meaning
Anoxic is a severe deficiency of Oxygen. It has no root in either Greek or English.
kindly teach me
🙄 😳 💡 👿 😥 😎 ➡ 😕 ❓ ❗ 😉 😐 😡 😯
Very good. I want information about prefixes especially negative. But I need also information about negative prefixes in the Russian language. if you can it will be very perfect thanks