Root Words & Affixes

I am at a loss on how to explain why "parent" can not be considered the root word of "transparent". Or "peat" is not the root word of "repeat".

I believe it is because the meanings of root words are not lost but merely modified when affixes are added. Am I correct?

Help!

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by Ed Joaquin

I am at a loss on how to explain why "parent" can not be considered the root word of "transparent". Or "peat" is not the root word of "repeat".

For "parent" to be the root word of "transparent" the words would have to be related in some way. They are not. (The root word is the word the other word is based on.) Similarly, "repeat" does not mean "peat again", which it would mean if the "re-" prefix was being used in its normal way.

Originally Posted by Ed Joaquin

I believe it is because the meanings of root words are not lost but merely modified when affixes are added. Am I correct?

Yes. When you look up a word's definition it will tell you (usually at the end) something about the etymology of the word. That should answer that kind of a question for you.

Welcome to the forum.

[RonBee]

:D :D :D

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by Ed Joaquin

I am at a loss on how to explain why "parent" can not be considered the root word of "transparent". Or "peat" is not the root word of "repeat".

I believe it is because the meanings of root words are not lost but merely modified when affixes are added. Am I correct?

Help!

The problem with root words and affixes is figuring out which language put the pieces together. The "parent" part of "transparent" is the root word in Latin. The "trans" part is the prefix in Latin. The word comes from Latin transparere, to show through, which comes from Latin trans, through + Latin parere, to bring forth, to appear, to show. Our word "parent" also comes from parere, using "to bring forth" to mean to bring forth life or give birth. Nevertheless, if we try to make transparent an English prefix + root, we would end up with a definition of "through a parent".

The same is true of "repeat". This word comes from Latin repetere, which was formed by re, again + petere, to seek. Unfortunately the word "peat" in English does not mean to seek.[/i]

[RonBee]

Thanks for that explanation, Mike.

:D

Thank you all for your kind replies.

Although I have been able to speak and write English in a fair enough manner, sometimes the rules present a challenge to me.

Thanks again and more power to you!

[RonBee]

We are glad to help. I hope you continue to find this forum pleasant and useful.

:D

In reaction to Mike's response:

If we try to make transparent an English prefix + root, ending with a definition of "through a parent", would I be right to assume that the resulting word would be a definitive with a dash in between and an "al" suffix (trans-parental), if there is such a word?

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by Ed Joaquin

In reaction to Mike's response:

If we try to make transparent an English prefix + root, ending with a definition of "through a parent", would I be right to assume that the resulting word would be a definitive with a dash in between and an "al" suffix (trans-parental), if there is such a word?

Well, it would be a hyphen, not a dash. Also, it would probably lose the hyphen after a time should the word come into general usage. If I understand your question properly (and I am not sure I do), one such word is transcontinental.

Other possibilities: transequatorial, transempirical, transmaterial, transnational, transmental, transphysical, transrational, transcortical, transduodenal, transfrontal.

8)

[Tdol]

You know your 'trans'