Why is "behead" the term for removing a person's head rather than "dehead" or "unhead"?
Other words that begin with the "be-" prefix seem to be opposite in meaning to the idea of something being removed or coming off (e.g., become, begin, besmirch, befuddle, bestow, belittle).
We (i.e. the creators of Pain in The English) developed a series of iPhone apps to teach preschool kids how to recognize letters and words. (My wife developed the characters and I did the coding.) Our own 4-year old daughter has been enjoying them. They are now available on Apple's App Store. You can search for "bitskis" on your iPhone, or visit the official website at bitskis.com.
If you have kids and own an iPhone, please check it out. It's $2.
Hi Col.
This is the etymology acording to etymonline.com:
behead
O.E. beheafdian, from be-, with privative force, + heafod (see head).
be-
weak form of O.E. bi "by," probably cognate with second syllable of Gk. amphi, L. ambi and originally meaning "about." This sense naturally drifted into intensive (cf. bespatter "spatter about," therefore "spatter very much"). Be- can also be privative (cf. behead), causative, or have just about any sense required. The prefix was productive 16c.-17c. in forming useful words, many of which have not survived, e.g. bethwack "to thrash soundly" (1555), betongue "to assail in speech, to scold" (1639).
Serendipitously, this is exactly what I've recently been rolling around my mind like the proverbial "last Rolo" is oftentimes rolled, melting seductively, around one's mouth. I'm very pleased to have such a useful and fulsome "answer". Rest assured I shall be starting a camapign to revive "bethwacking" … proably commencing with public schools.
With the "be" senario, how could "believe" be explained?
This has not got the prefix that seems to be opposite in meaning to the idea of something being removed or coming off. Puzzler!
"belief" and "believe" were in Old English "geleafa" and "gelefan". The "ge-" was replaced with "be-", possibly by analogy with other words beginning with "be" (that's my guess). "be-" was not only privative, it was a general intensive suffix.
Are there any other examples, besides “behead,” of the be- prefix with a privative meaning? I can’t think of one. If not, I do not think the question has really been answered (or, rather, the answer given by Soup is question begging).
In spite of etymonline.com’s description, if behead is really the only privative use of ‘be-”, then let me offer an alternate etymology. The “be-” in behead is not privative at all. It is actually intensive, just like every other use of “be-”. I would posit that, in this case, “-head” means to remove the head. This would be similar to the process of boning. When you bone a chicken, you take the bones out; you don’t put them back in. While there may not be a word, “heading”, meaning “to remove the head”, “beheading” could still be an intensive version expressing the same sentiment. Now, this is pure speculation on my part as I haven’t researched this, but it certainly sounds plausible to me, especially if there are no other unambiguous examples of “be-” as privative.