prepend vs prefix
Dylan Nicholson
most dictionaries. I did some reading and noted that quite a few
people believe that the word is unnecessary because 'prefix' already
means the same thing.
Technically this is true, but if you search for uses of prepend in
newsgroup articles and webpages that are *not* talking about
computers, probably most of them sound (to me) unnatural if you use
the word prefix instead.
Some examples:
1 Is it better to prepend or append disclaimer statements?
2 Take a word, prepend 'sch' and you've as much as said that the
suggestion of it (the unadorned word) is nonsense
3 When only two digits are given to represent a year, prepend 19.
4 We prepend the word "will" to the present perfect to get the future
perfect
Of these only 2) sounds "about right" using prefix, although my
initial reaction would be 'prefix sch with what?'. As for 4) I don't
believe you can use 'prefix to'*, whereas 'prepend to' is very common.
In general prefix seems to be pretty rare as a verb, and tends to be
used "prefix 'xxx' with 'yyy'".
Anyway this is just for non-computing usage. For computing usage
nearly all examples of prepend just don't sound right with prefix, so
the word clearly fills a gap. I would surprised not to see it in
dictionaries within a few years.
Dylan
*) Lots of hits for this of course, but not with prefix as a verb.
One slightly amusing hit was "Can I append a prefix to the counter?"
Alan Jones
"Dylan Nicholson" <dy...@moldflow.com> wrote in message
news:156b8737.02020...@posting.google.com...
> I only today discovered that 'prepend' is not a recognised word in
> most dictionaries. I did some reading and noted that quite a few
> people believe that the word is unnecessary because 'prefix' already
> ... For computing usage
> nearly all examples of prepend just don't sound right with prefix, so
> the word clearly fills a gap. I would surprised not to see it in
> dictionaries within a few years.
"Prepend" is in OED2 and NSOED ("rare"), but not in the approximate sense of
"prefix". It's a verb meaning to think carefully about something beforehand,
literally to "weigh" its consequences in one's mind. Your proposed use seems
to be a novel usage, an adaptation of "append", which you must interpret as
"add at the end". But the "ap-" (="ad") element doesn't in itself mean "at
the end". Prefixes and suffixes are together classed as affixes (this "af-"
is also a disguised "ad-"). There's no reason to restrict
"append"/"appendix" to material added at the end; it may, for instance, be
published as a separate pamphlet. Only custom makes us think that an
"appendix" must come after the main body of a book, but custom also makes us
assume that a list of contents should be placed at the beginning, when older
publications, especially from the Continent, often place it at the end, as
if it were the index. So "prepend" and "append" are not by derivation
opposites..
Nevertheless, as "prepend" is a rare word, there's no harm in adopting it as
computer jargon. This may be justified by an obsolete usage of "prependent"
as a noun in the sense of "penis", since it "hangs in front". The 1610 OED2
citation is "Priapus..was expelled from Lampsacum..for the hugeness of his
pre-pendent".
Alan Jones
Franke
MW3 has it:
Main Entry: prepend
Pronunciation: pr**pend
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form: -ed/-ing/-s
Etymology: pre- + -pend (as in perpend)
: CONSIDER, PREMEDITATE *make jokes with malice prepended Charles Lamb*
Mark Brader
> Your proposed use seems to be a novel usage...
Says it as if it had never been heard of before, doesn't he? Sheesh.
--
Mark Brader | "Are you finding it frustrating when everything works on minix?
m...@vex.net | No more all-nighters to get a nifty program working?"
Toronto | -- Linus Torvalds announces Linux, 1991
Bob Cunningham
said:
A few years ago I proposed the use of "precatenate" and "postcatenate" as
more precise words for the ideas people may reach for and express
imprecisely when they say "prepend" and "append". You can read my remarks
in an article with Message ID 327bb3ad....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 .
(Google has a feature on their "Advanced Groups Search" page,
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
, for going directly to a message with a given Message ID.)
The thread has various opinions on "prepend" and related matters. There
are 20 articles in the thread, and it starts with Message ID
misraelD...@netcom.com>#1/1 .
Mark Wallace
Doesn't 'prepend' mean to weigh -- not unlike weighing in judgement,
but before the fact? One prepends an aforethought idea, AFAIK --
but I doubt many dictionaries will disagree with me.
I've never heard of it being used as an antonym of 'append'. Adding
something to the front of a file is 'appending to the front'. One
definition of 'append' is simply to attach; no mention of front or
rear, as the prefix 'ap-' does not always mean 'in front of', but
also 'next to'.
Is this another piece of silly verbal mutilation; performed by
people who stick totally rigidly to the grammar, syntax, and
punctuation of computer languages, but think that they can do
whatever the Hell they like with English?
I would have prepended it to be so.
Why not use 'front-append'? It sounds kiddy-jargonesque enough to
satisfy the most juvenile of programmers, but is also good syntax.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
For the best in Freeware
including the latest in signature encryption
visit:
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/progs01.htm
____________________________________________
dcw
Mark Wallace <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>I've never heard of it being used as an antonym of 'append'. Adding
>something to the front of a file is 'appending to the front'. One
>definition of 'append' is simply to attach; no mention of front or
>rear, as the prefix 'ap-' does not always mean 'in front of', but
>also 'next to'.
It's common in computing, usually contrasted with "append", which
is taken to mean only "append to the end". I suppose it's
convenient to have two (or even three) words, although I don't see
what's wrong with "prefix" and "postfix" (and "affix"), but in that
case we should have "postpend", and leave "append" with its
dictionary meaning.
(Or should that be "suffix" and "suppend"?)
David
K. Edgcombe
Mark Wallace <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>
>Doesn't 'prepend' mean to weigh -- not unlike weighing in judgement,
>but before the fact? One prepends an aforethought idea, AFAIK --
>but I doubt many dictionaries will disagree with me.
I thought you had muddled it up with "perpend", but the online OED says:
to weigh mentally, ponder, consider; to premeditate (But app. often used by
confusion for "perpend").
If you look up "perpend" it says
to weigh mentally, ponder, consider, examine, investigate.
So the degree of confusion involved in using "prepend" instead of "perpend" is
pretty inconsiderable.
Incidentally, "perpend" is also an obsolete spelling of "parpen", a stone which
passes through a wall from side to side, having two smooth vertical faces.
I'm sure you all wanted to know that.
Katy
Mark Wallace
"K. Edgcombe" <ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a412em$n8t$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <a40d46$1bh4ic$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>,
> Mark Wallace <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
> >
> >Doesn't 'prepend' mean to weigh -- not unlike weighing in
judgement,
> >but before the fact? One prepends an aforethought idea, AFAIK --
> >but I doubt many dictionaries will disagree with me.
>
> I thought you had muddled it up with "perpend", but the online OED
says:
As soon as I read that I panicked; thinking my dicky memory had done
it to me again.
> to weigh mentally, ponder, consider; to premeditate (But app.
often used by
> confusion for "perpend").
Thank Heaven for small mercies.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
Ever been stuck on a word, or a point of grammar?
You need to visit the APIHNA World Dictionary
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/apihna-0.htm
____________________________________________
mag...@rahul.net
Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> created:
>Your proposed use seems
It's not a *proposed* use. "Prepend" is widely used today. It
comes from geekspeek and refers to inserting new text at the
beginning of a text file, rather than appending it the end. See:
<http://www.above.net/html/techlog.txt>
>to be a novel usage, an adaptation of "append", which you must interpret as
>"add at the end". But the "ap-" (="ad") element doesn't in itself mean "at
>the end".
And "-gate" doesn't in itself mean "a government scandal" but
following Watergate we had Billygate, Clintongate, Monicagate,
(fill in controversy here)-gate, etc.
Welcome to the wonderful world of new word coinage.
jc
david56
I'm sorry to cause Given Name confusion, but I agree with David. I
didn't know the earlier meaning, and because of the use of prepend in
computing, I would not have considered it especially rare.
--
David
The address is valid today, but I will change it at to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Love All, Serve All.
Barcelona, London, Ottawa, Orlando, Edinburgh, San Diego, Tijuana,
Manchester, Hollywood, San Francisco.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> It's common in computing, usually contrasted with "append", which is
> taken to mean only "append to the end". I suppose it's convenient
> to have two (or even three) words, although I don't see what's wrong
> with "prefix" and "postfix" (and "affix"), but
The problem is that "prefix" and "postfix" are terms of art fixed as
adjectives and meaning something completely different. The others
that go with them are "infix" and "matchfix".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to
|it, but when you need one, you need
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will
(650)857-7572 |do.
| Bill McNutt
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mark Wallace
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:lme3wk...@hpl.hp.com...
> D.C....@ukc.ac.uk (dcw) writes:
>
> > It's common in computing, usually contrasted with "append",
which is
> > taken to mean only "append to the end". I suppose it's
convenient
> > to have two (or even three) words, although I don't see what's
wrong
> > with "prefix" and "postfix" (and "affix"), but
>
> The problem is that "prefix" and "postfix" are terms of art fixed
as
> adjectives and meaning something completely different. The others
> that go with them are "infix" and "matchfix".
I really can't see what the problem is with saying "Append the
resultant record to the front of the output file". It's English; it
states its meaning perfectly clearly; and it doesn't childishly play
God with existing words.
I've a better idea.
Why not write if-then statements however the Hell we feel like
writing them?
IF'N a IS LIKE b WHY NOT
{actions}
OR MAYBE
{actions}
IF'N IT AIN'T DON'T BOTHER
I'm sure the compiler would have no problems with that; just as the
compilers of dictionaries have no problem with people hi-jacking
words for no good reason.
Instead of wasting time looking for ways to balls the language up,
time should be spent learning how to use it well.
That goes for all languages: spoken or computer.
We don't mess with the language of your profession, Dylan. Kindly
return the courtesy.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I really can't see what the problem is with saying "Append the
> resultant record to the front of the output file". It's English; it
> states its meaning perfectly clearly; and it doesn't childishly play
> God with existing words.
Three problems. First, it's longer. Second, it forces you to specify
where the insertion is taking place even in the far more common case
of adding to the end. Third, "append" had already become a term of
art for that more common case of "add some stuff at the end" (of a
file or a list).
I personally have no experience with a book that put its appendices
anywhere other than the back. Do you suppose that there's a reason
publishers came up with things like "front matter"?
What I don't think I've seen anybody in this thread mention is that
there *is* a historically justified verb for this act: "prepose".
It's listed in Webster's 1828 dictionary with the note "Not much used"
and in the 1913 as "Obs". That notwithstanding, if you do a Google
search, you'll find lots of examples, mostly of linguists talking
about things like "preposed relative clauses".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to
|zero, but when you look in
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |detail....
(650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison