Talk:il-

Tea room discussion
I don't think that either illuminate or illustrious are examples of the prefix il-. - dougher 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've removed them. —Ruakh TALK 04:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on. Are we limiting ourselves to prefixes and suffixes that are or have been productive in English? "Il-" could also the variant of in- meaning, more or less, "in". It was productive in (post-classical ?) Latin and possibly French. I suppose that "in-" in this sense is no longer modified into "il-" before a stem beginning with an "l". DCDuring TALK 17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I do not believe in limiting ourselves to affixes that are productive in English, though I suspect that other editors (such as Atelaes) do believe in doing that. However, in this case it doesn't seem to be an issue, since while I think the great majority of il- words inherited the prefix from Latin or French, the OED gives a few examples that it claims are original with English (viz illogical:, illoyal:, and a few nonces). —Ruakh TALK 04:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The productivity of il- seems limited to the meaning "not".
 * + lay: = inlay:.
 * + liquid: = illiquid:.
 * I think those are the patterns. DCDuring TALK 08:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh! Sorry, I misunderstood your previous comment. Yes, I think you're right. —Ruakh TALK 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I don't have the linguistic vocabulary, I should always include one or more examples of what I'm trying to get at. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)