Does the suffix -ify have any inherent characteristics of making letters pronounced which would otherwise be silent?

Question

It is quite clear that the word "signify" is derived from sign and the suffix -ify:

sign + -ify = signify

The letter "g" in the word sign is silent but when the suffix is added, it becomes pronounced:

/ˈsɪgnɪfaɪ/

Although the "g" doesn't get pronounced when another suffix -able is added:

sign + -able = signable ... /ˈsaɪnəbəl/ (no /g/)

Another example is the word damnify:

/ˈdamnɪfaɪ/

Upon the addition of the suffix -ify the "n", which would otherwise be silent, becomes pronounced. Now I looked up their etymologies and came to know that those words weren't formed within English. "Damnify" is from Old French damnefier and "signify" is from Old French signifier and I suspect they have etymological /g/ and /n/, respectively.
For "signable" Wikitionary merely says "sign + -able" and I can't find it in any other etymological dictionary. The reason "signable" doesn't have a /g/, in my opnion, can be attributed to its compounding within Modern English; looking at the results from Google Ngram makes my opinion appear correct in that "signable" has zero results and "signify" predates it by over 500 years.
The suffix -ify (which we also use to make words in Modern English) is from French ifier.
Questions:
I have two closely related questions:

Does the suffix -ify have any inherent characteristic of making consonants pronounced which would otherwise be silent?
What if I add it to a Modern English word (say benign or align)? Will it make the "g" pronounced?

BoldBen · Answer

Your question is based on a false premise. According to Etymology online the word signify comes not from 'sign' but from the Latin 'significare' via the Old French 'signifier'. The same source gives the origin of both the noun and verb sign as the Latin word 'signum' via the Old French 'signe'. The 'gn' in 'signe' and, probably in 'signifier' would have been pronounced rather like 'niy' (I don't have the IPA symbols available) but this would have been more evident in 'signe' than in 'significare'.
English speakers must have transcribed that sound (which does not exist in English) in two ways, one emphasising the 'g' in 'signify', 'significance' and so on and the other emphasising the 'n' in 'sign'. The fact that there are syllables starting with a 'i' following the 'gn' in 'signify' and 'significance' but not in 'sign' was probably a contributing factor. The fact that 'sign' would have been used more widely by the mainly illiterate general population might also have contributed.

LPH · Answer

There is apparently nothing particular about "-ify" and the most probable phenomenon to be associated to this restitution of the g (widely applicable) is the reduction of the long  vowel (/aɪ/, /eɪ/, /u:/ to a short one (/ɪ/, /ʌ/) or simply the  possible choice of a short vowel before non ending "-gn" (dignity); the adoption of a long vowel is apparently the rule before ending "-gn".

sign /saɪn/,  signage /ˈsaɪn ɪdʒ/, BUT signal /ˈsɪg nᵊl/, signify /ˈsɪg nɪ faɪ/, signature, signalment, signet, significant, …

assign /ə ˈsaɪn/, assignable /ə ˈsaɪn əb  ᵊl/, assignee /ˌæs aɪ ˈni:/, assignment /ə ˈsaɪn mənt/, BUT assignation /ˌæs ɪg ˈneɪʃ ᵊn/, assignat /ˈæs ɪg næt/

benign /bə ˈnaɪn/, BUT  benignant /bə ˈnɪg nənt/, benignity /bə ˈnɪg nət i/

design /dɪ ˈzaɪn / BUT designate, designation, designatory, …

malign /mə ˈlaɪn/, BUT malignant /mə ˈlɪg nənt/, malignancy, malignity

impugn /u:/, impugnable BUT impugnation /ˌɪm pʌg ˈneɪʃ ᵊn/

reign /reɪn/, BUT (Here, we find as well a change in the digraph.) regnant /reg nənt/, regnal, regnancy

align /ə ˈlaɪn/, alignment /ə ˈlaɪn mənt/

arraign /ə ˈreɪn/, campaign /kam ˈpeɪn/,  campaigning /kam ˈpeɪn ɪŋ/

deign /deɪn/, deigning /ˈdeɪn ɪŋ/

dignity, dignify, dignitary

consign, consignment, consignee

Does the suffix -ify have any inherent characteristics of making letters pronounced which would otherwise be silent?

Questions:

2 Answers

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question