Category talk:English words prefixed with præ-

RFDO discussion: March 2016–April 2017
This is just an archaic form of pre-, so it doesn’t need its own category. Alternative forms should not have etymologies, and I don’t know any exceptions to that rule. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 13:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There might be some terms that are attested first with præ- then later with pre- (as in the original formation of the word) I have no real objection to this category but not real objection to deleting it either. Etymologies for alternative forms are generally needless reduplication but they're not banned; Old French and  come to mind as the ig forms are under the influence of Latin and the non ig forms aren't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's almost enough to make one miss Mr. Digraph himself: User:Doremitzwr. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: alternative spellings probably don't need etymologies, but there are also alternative forms that differ in morphology, and they definitely need separate etymologies (at minimum, they should be in their own suffix categories). --Tropylium (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. It should be an empty category anyway, because alt forms aren't given etymologies in cases like these. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)