Talk:con-

is that thing about "conlang" a joke? in any case, surely it is not as important as the other two meanings?

Why has the prefix not adopted the definitions of combined "con" words?
There are many words beginning with "con-" that don't meet the definitions stated here. One of my favorites is "confuse." Fuse means to create order out of chaos (to bring things together). Confuse means to reduce order to chaos (to mix orderly things up). This obviously has nothing to do with the stated definition of "con-" meaning with, joined, or together. Merriam-Webster's third definition for "Con" is its adverb form "on the negative side : in opposition ." This would make the word confuse a compound word: con fuse. My question is why this common action hasn't been added as a definition of the prefix "con-"? Howick (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (MST)