Are all prefixes separate syllables? 

It seems like most are. When do the exceptions occur?

what about anti and semi and quasi and hemi and psudo?

Since a prefix is, by definition, a letter or string of letters that
are "attached" to an existing word to change its meaning, I think that
a true prefix will always add at least one syllable to that word.

The only related exception that comes to mind is that occasionally a
prefix becomes, through repeated usage, an accepted substitute for the
word it was originally attached to. For example, the word (prefix)
"semi" has come to denote a "semitrailer truck" in the U.S.

Yes, semi and hemi add two syllables. My question is are there times
when the prefix used without an actual word (e.g. prepare) ever
somehow joins with another letter and is no longer its own separate
syllable.

chris_nyc --

I am now a little confused about what you are looking for.  In
English, the "pre-" in "prepare" is not a prefix but a part of a
single indivisible word.  By definition, a prefix is "an affix, such
as dis- in disbelieve, attached to the front of a word to produce a
derivative word or an inflected form." (American Heritage Dictionary
of te English Language, Fourth Edition)


markj-ga

Okay. I found this commentary:

"Latin prefixes are very common in English words [...] One must be
very careful not to confuse prefixes with syllables; though typically
a prefix is a separate syllable, not all separate syllables are
prefixes.

[...] The ex- is a Latin prefix, as is sub-, in-, con-, contra-, de-,
per-, pre-, and pro-, among others. 

  from http://linguistlist.org

I haven't worked out the exceptions yet. Hope that is a good start.

* J *

Thank you all for the great comments. Maybe a little clarification
about my purpose will help. I am teaching adults to read. In a book on
syllables, I got (Success with Syllables), the "rule" is given that "a
word is divided [into syllables] between the prefix and the root
word." That makes sense. But then the author goes onto include words
in practice lists like "transfer" which, as was commented on, do not
really include prefixes.

I think the answer would be on some site about syllables that
clarified the rule about the role prefixes play in creating syllables.
I know this may seem like a very technical point, but it is really
about giving my students the right information so they can
successfully break down and read words.

chris_nyc --

I can't be sure without seeing the book you are using, but here's my
guess as to an explanation.

Both of the examples you have cited -- "prepare" and "transfer" --
contain first syllables that are very often used as Latin-based
prefixes in English (for example, in "predetermine" and "transsexual,"
among many other such words).

Indeed, the words "prepare" and "transfer" come from Latin words where
"prae-" and "trans-" are used as prefixes in that language --
"praeparare"  and  "transferre."

The confusion lies in the fact that the evolution of the English words
"prepare" and "transfer" has resulted in the common prefixes "pre-"
and "trans-" becoming part of the "root word" in these two examples.

My guess is that any other questionable words in your book's list of
examples of the separate-syllable rule about prefixes fall into the
same category; that is, words with first syllables that are _usually_
used as prefixes.

So, if I'm right, you might simply choose to ignore the fact that
"pre-" and "trans-" are technically not prefixes in the listed
examples (your students probably don't need to know this at this
point). Since both are common English prefixes and they are indeed
separate syllables in the words "prepare" and "transfer,"  you can go
ahead and use them as examples of the rule you are teaching.


Let me know if the above makes sense to you.

markj-ga

The only exception I have been able to think of is the Yiddish-derived
shm- or schm- prefix, as in "Oedipus, schmoedipus, as long as he loves
his mother."