Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users

Dashboard
Notifications
Mark all as read
Q&A

Why wasn't the prefix 'ad-' used for 'in-' + 'putare'?

+0
−0

I quote Etymonline on impute (v.):

early 15c., from Old French imputer, emputer (14c.)
and directly from Latin imputare "to reckon, make account of, charge, ascribe,"
from assimilated form of in- "in, into" (from PIE root *en "in")(2)) +
putare "to trim, prune; reckon, clear up, settle (an account)," from PIE *puto- "cut, struck," suffixed form of root *pau- (2) "to cut, strike, stamp" (see pave).

Unquestionably, I know that Latin and English are different languages. For one, Latin antedates English!

imputare has a second denotation: "to attribute, credit to". But Latin uses "ad-" in "attribute". , and English uses the preposition "to" after "credit to"). Thus why didn't Latin use "ad-", rather than "in-"?

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comments

0 answers

Sign up to answer this question »

This community is part of the Codidact network. We have other communities too — take a look!

You can also join us in chat!

Want to advertise this community? Use our templates!