1

I was reading Etymonline's entry for splice {verb}:

1520s, originally a sailors' word, from Middle Dutch splissen "to splice" (Dutch splitsen), from Proto-Germanic spli-, from PIE root *(s)plei- "to split, splice" (see flint).
The Dutch word was borrowed in French as épisser.

to split and to splice are antonyms; so I'm confused. Is this PIE root a contronym?
If so, how did it become thus?

Footnote: I just discovered the pricelessness in WARILY learning PIE roots, for improving my English and French vocabulary. Please pardon this question if it's naive, but please do advise.

Improve this question
1
  • It's up to you whether it's a contronym or not, but it's not limited to that root. The relevant phonosemantics of simplex words with the SPL- assonance shows both splitting and splicing, depending on whether one's viewing input or output of the transformation referred to in the event -- which in turn mostly depends on which is relevant in the particular context where the word is used. Which can be pretty random.
    – john lawler in exile
    Commented Apr 15, 2015 at 19:15

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

The OED (the uncredited source for most of the entries in etymonline) is a bit more cautious; its entry on “splice” says: “< Middle Dutch splissen, of doubtful origin, but perhaps related to split v.” Both “splice” and “split” are originally nautical terms, borrowed from Dutch. I do not see any great difficulty in the semantic development split > splice. You have to split a cable before you can splice it.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.