Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[nawee]

Hello,

I rarely see this word "pregnable" used. And I can't even find it in British English dictionaries. I have seen "impregnable" and think they are related (opposites). What I'm wondering is, does "pregnable" really exist and is it really used? If so, where is mostly used?

I searched for the etymology of the word online and found only the etymology of "impregnable". Is it possible that it is a case of back-formation, that the word comes from "impregnable" and that "im-" was removed to form the opposite (like editor > edit)?

Thank you,

Nawee

[Jintii]

Pregnable does exist (see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pregnable for a definition and etymology), but it is rare. I doubt I have ever seen it used in print, and I have certainly never heard it in conversation.

I don't see any evidence of back formation in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is about as definitive a source as exists for the English language. Both words come from the French prenable, meaning to take (with first English citation around the year 1435).

As a side note, you will notice that the French form had no g. Interestingly, the g was apparently added to the English form "evidently in imitation of the g mute in reign, deign, and the like".

I hope that helps.

[LucentShade]

English has lots of these words that "should" exist, but don't. There's "inadvertently," which means "without knowing / unintentionally", but "advertently" does not exist. You can be overwhelmed or underwhelmed by a movie or life experience, but you can't be "whelmed."

[Anuradha Chepur]

Surprisingly though, pregnable, advertently and whelmed are listed in Merriam-Webster, and also show up on Google in decent numbers.