ept

[Mark Mandel]

Yes, "inept" is etymologically the negation of "apt". OED:

ad. L. ineptus unsuited, absurd, foolish, f. in- (IN-3) + aptus APT: perh.
immed. a. F. inepte (14th c. in Hatz.-Darm.).

The change of "a" to "e" or "i" in prefixed forms is common, going back to
pre-Classical Latin at a time when the stress went to the (iirc) first
syllable. Exempli gratia:

de- + capio 'take' -> decipio (' to catch, ensnare, entrap, beguile, elude,
deceive, cheat '), past participle deceptus; whence "deceive" and
"deception".

m a m

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Damien Hall <djh514 at york.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> From Wilson.
>
> It didn't occur to me when first writing this that phonological change
> could actually mean that _inept_ was the negative form of _apt_ - which is
> plausible, isn't it? Is there any actual proof? In which case, the
> non-occurrence of _ept_ is explained.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org