Skip to main content

Etymology and pronunciation of arch-, archi-


The prefix arch-, archi- “chief, principal; extreme, ultra; early, primitive,” derives from Latinized Greek arkh-, arkhi-, the combining form of arkhos “chief.” Usually, arch- is pronounced like “arch” (ɑrtʃ), and archi- sounds like “ark” (ɑrkɪ), although archangel (ɑrkeɪndʒəl) is a notable exception.


Is there an etymological or other reason for pronouncing the two prefixes differently? Did they perhaps enter English at different times? Likewise, is there any pattern to which nouns use arch- (e.g., archenemy, archfiend) versus archi- (archiepiscopal, architect)? Why is archangel an exception to the pronunciation rule?



Answer



An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (1888) by Walter W. Skeat answers all your questions at once.



ARCH-, chief; almost solely used as a prefix. (L.--Gk.) Shak. has 'my worthy arch and patron,' Lear, ii. I.61; but the word is harshly used, and better kept as a mere prefix. In arch-bishop, we have a word in very early use; A.S. erce-bisceop, arce-bisceop (Bosworth). Thus arch- is to be rightly regarded as descended from A.S. arce-, which was borrowed from Lat. archi- (in archi-episcopus), and this again from Gk. άρχι in άρχιεπίσκοπος, an archbishop. Gk. άρχός to be first; cf. Gk. άρχή, beginning. Cf. Skt. arh, to be worthy; Curtius, i.233. The form of the prefix being once fixed, it was used for other words. Der. arch-bishop, arch-deacon, arch-duke, arch-duchy, &c. In the word arch-angel, the prefix is taken directly from the Greek; see Archi-.
ARCHI-, chief; used as a prefix. (L.--Gk.) The older form is arch-, which (as explained under Arch-) was a modification of A.S. arce-, from Lat. archi-. The form archi- is of later use, but borrowed from the Lat. directly. Gk. άρχί-, prefix. See Arch-. Der. archi-episcopal, archi-episcopy, archi-diaconal. In the word arch-angel, the final i of the prefix is dropped before the vowel following. In the word arche-type, the prefix takes the form arche-.



Another edition of this dictionary (revised in 1910; reprinted in 2005) adds a couple of comments to the explanation.



ARCH- <...> In the word arch-angel, the ch remained hard (as k) in the Romance languages, on account of the a following; cf. Ital. archangelo, Span. arcangel.
ARCHI- <...> The same prefix also forms part of the words archi-mandrite, archi-pelago, archi-tect, archi-trave.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more