Post History
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 ...
#3: Post edited
by
PSTH
·
2021-12-15T05:31:38Z (about 3 years ago)
How does the prefix 'in-' befit imputare?
- How can the Latin prefix 'in-' possibly befit imputare?
- I quote Etymonline on [impute (v.):](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=impute&searchmode=none)
- >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](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*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*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&allowed_in_frame=0)).
How does **`in-`** befit the second meaning of *imputare* : ["to attribute, credit to"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Verb_3)? Why does Latin use the prefix **`in-`** here?Note that Latin did compound _ad-_ to _putō_ in [_apputō_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apputo) ← _[ad- (ap)](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad-#Latin "ad-")_ (“to, toward”) + _[putō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puto#Latin "puto")_ (“regard, judge”). But _apputō_ never got lexicalized in English.
- I quote Etymonline on [impute (v.):](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=impute&searchmode=none)
- >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](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*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*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&allowed_in_frame=0)).
- Why does Latin use the prefix **`in-`** — when the second meaning of *imputare* is ["to attribute, credit to"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Verb_3) that obviously features the English 'to'???
- Note that Latin did compound _ad-_ to _putō_ in [_apputō_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apputo) ← _[ad- (ap)](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad-#Latin "ad-")_ (“to, toward”) + _[putō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puto#Latin "puto")_ (“regard, judge”). But _apputō_ wasn't lexicalized in English.
#2: Post edited
by
PSTH
·
2021-12-15T05:16:49Z (about 3 years ago)
Why wasn't the prefix 'ad-' used for 'in-' + 'putare'?
- How does the prefix 'in-' befit imputare?
- I quote Etymonline on [impute (v.):](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=impute&searchmode=none)
- >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](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*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*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&allowed_in_frame=0)).
Unquestionably, I know that Latin and English are different languages. For one, Latin antedates English!*imputare* has a second denotation: ["to attribute, credit to"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Verb_3). But Latin uses "ad-" in "attribute". , and English uses the preposition "to" after ["credit to"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Verb_3)). Thus why didn't Latin use "ad-", rather than "in-"?
- I quote Etymonline on [impute (v.):](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=impute&searchmode=none)
- >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](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*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*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&allowed_in_frame=0)).
- How does **`in-`** befit the second meaning of *imputare* : ["to attribute, credit to"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Verb_3)? Why does Latin use the prefix **`in-`** here?
- Note that Latin did compound _ad-_ to _putō_ in [_apputō_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apputo) ← _[ad- (ap)](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad-#Latin "ad-")_ (“to, toward”) + _[putō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puto#Latin "puto")_ (“regard, judge”). But _apputō_ never got lexicalized in English.
#1: Initial revision
by
PSTH
·
2021-05-27T06:36:13Z (over 3 years ago)
Why wasn't the prefix 'ad-' used for 'in-' + 'putare'?
I quote Etymonline on [impute (v.):](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=impute&searchmode=none) >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](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*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*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&allowed_in_frame=0)). Unquestionably, I know that Latin and English are different languages. For one, Latin antedates English! *imputare* has a second denotation: ["to attribute, credit to"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Verb_3). But Latin uses "ad-" in "attribute". , and English uses the preposition "to" after ["credit to"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Verb_3)). Thus why didn't Latin use "ad-", rather than "in-"?