What is the etymology of procreo? How does it differ from creo? Does the "pro-" in procreo refer to someone or something specific—e.g., to God or country, in the sense that procreation is for the sake of God or for a nation (natio = birth)?

According to the OED, the earliest English usage of "procreate" is in the context of begetting children for God:

a1525   in W. A. Craigie Asloan MS (1923) I. 301/2   Adam of iijc & xxxti ȝeris procreat Seth of quhom com the sonnis of God.
[Adam of 130 years procreated Seth of whom come the sons of God.]


Nothing to do with the purpose, even though prō (as a preposition) generally shows purpose. Weird, isn't it?

Latin really likes to stick prepositional prefixes on verbs; sometimes these change the meaning in predictable ways (ob- makes the action intentional), sometimes they make idioms you wouldn't expect (per-eō "through" + "go" = polite word for "die"), but most of the time they just make the verb more intense.

That's what's happening here. Creō and prōcreō mean the same thing, but the latter puts more emphasis on it.

  • Can't "pro-" also mean "toward" or "forward" like "process" (vs. "recess") or "progress"? It seems it's not just an intensifier or something regarding purpose. – Geremia May 14 at 23:26
  • 1
    @Geremia "It seems it's not just an intensifier"…why? – Draconis May 14 at 23:32
  • Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "pro-" here has "Nothing to do with the purpose"? And what is it about procreo that is "more intense" than creo? – Geremia May 15 at 16:47
  • @Geremia Mostly, Lewis and Short don't mention any sense of purpose, none of the examples I've found show a sense of purpose, and while it's hard to prove a negative, the fact that Cicero and Lucretius seem to use it as a plain intensifier is pretty solid evidence imo. – Draconis May 15 at 16:53
  • 1
    It's not just Latin. Slavonic languages, and to an extent Germanic ones, use a variety of preverbs that seem to be originally directional in a wide variety of senses. Consider understand, withhold and forbear. – Colin Fine May 15 at 23:35

The linguistic meanings of creare and procreare are not the same: the latter contains a directional prefix, which indeed has a semantic contribution that goes beyond the meaning of 'in front of'. For example, according to García-Hernández, a Spanish Latinist scholar who has analyzed the very complex topic of Latin preverbs, pro- enters into an important opposition with ob-: e.g., vid. García-Hernández (1991): pro- vs. ob-. In particular, I like his image-schematic representation of Latin preverbs.

It is well-known that the path/directional meaning of Latin preverbs became grammaticalized into other more abstract notions (e.g., aspect; cf. also the "intensive" value attributed by Draconis in his answer). It is worth pointing out that, in the specialized literature, complex/prefixed verbs like procreare or producere are considered as good examples of the so-called "satellite-framed" nature of Latin: path/directionality (and aspect) is typically encoded in the preverb or particle (aka. "satellite") in so-called "satellite-framed languages" (e.g., Early & Classical Latin, German, Russian, etc.), whereas it is typically expressed in the verbal root in so-called "verb-framed languages" (e.g., Catalan, Spanish, Turkish, Japanese, etc.).

Accordingly, a typical linguistic analysis of Latin complex verbs like procreare involves (i) to consider the preverb pro- as the so-called "framing event", i.e., as the main predicate and (ii) to consider the verbal root as the so-called "co-event", i.e., as the subordinate predicate. So procreare (originally) means something like "to bring forth by creating". In contrast, the meaning of creare is obviously less complex since it lacks the path/aspectual meaning attributed to the prefix.

For readers interested in this complex topic of Latin linguistics, here is a recent reference: Latin as a satellite-framed language. Among other interesting things, this author shows a very important parallelism between Latin and Slavic languages (both are classified as "satellite-framed languages" in Talmy's famous typology: A typology of event conflation). Typically, when dealing with verbal prefixation in Latin and Slavic, the prefix expresses the main semantic idea, whereas the verbal root expresses the subordinate one (something similar to the English "out-prefixation construction": e.g., John {outran/outdanced/outdrank/outworked/...} Mary; lit.,'John surpassed Mary by V-ing' (cf. the lexical subordination meaning of procreare above). As noted above, this is also quite typical of other satellite-framed languages like Russian (e.g., see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248315875_Verb_prefixation_in_Russian_as_lexical_subordination ).

  • 1
    Satellite-framed languages = 'float-into' or 'in-float' languages. In contrast, "verb-framed languages" = 'enter-floating' languages. Latin (like Russian) belongs to the first type, whereas Catalan and other Romance languages belong to the second type. Notice that it is a good example that shows that a typological classification of languages can be quite different from a genetic one. – Mitomino May 19 at 3:32

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.