In my History of the English Language class (I think it's the only class I've mentioned here yet), our next assignment is to write a boigraphy of an English word. The Indo-European root of this word (according to one source) is *sa- which means 'to satisfy'. From this small seed (with various morphations such as *sa-to-, *sa-ti-, *sa-tu-ro & *sa-d-ro-) come several good English words, many of which preserve the original meaning (sate, satiate, satisfy, saturate).
Some, however, come to us through interesting channels: 'assai' is a musical term from Italian (of course) which means 'very' (as in allegro assai). This comes from the Vulgar Latin ad satis 'to sufficiency' (notice how the 'a' is added to the root by metathesis of juncture). But also stemming from this same Vulgar Latin phrase is our word 'asset'! "How?" you may ask. It came to England in the Angl-Norman times and was combined into 'asez' which became 'asetz' which obviously changed to 'assets' Which held the (I'm assuming legal) meaning of 'sufficient goods to settle Testator's debts or legacies'.
This is all well and good but the word that I am writing about is 'sad'. How is this related to the root meaning 'to satisfy'?! Are they not fairly opposite in meaning? I guess you'll just have to wait and see since this topic is
TO BE CONTINUED... (who would have thought I'd resort to gimmics to keep people coming back?)
No comments:
Post a Comment