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.

  • 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 Apr 15 '15 at 19:15
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, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.