Etymology: Cognate with Old Frisian mis- , Middle Dutch mis- , misse- , mes- , messe- (Dutch mis- ), Old Saxon mis- , Old High German missa- , missi- , mis- (Middle High German misse- , mis- , German miß- ), Old Icelandic mis- , Gothic missa- (in missadeþs misdeed n., missaleiks different, various (see mislich adj.), and missaqiss disagreement) < the same Germanic base as miss v.¹ This essentially adjectival Germanic base appears to represent the continuation of an Indo-European formation created by adding a participial suffix to a base which, on both semantic and phonological grounds, is hard to identify with certainty. It may well be the zero-grade of a base which in its e-grade is represented in Germanic by mithe v. and its cognates. Other more distant connections have also been suggested, with some scholars supposing a link with classical Latin mittere to send, let go (although the sense seems somewhat remote), and others believing that it may be cognate with Sanskrit mith- to oppose, contend, mithū (later as mithu ) wrongly (compare Iranian miθō wrongly), mithas in contention, alternately, mutually, mithuyā (later as mithyā ) wrongly, falsely, Old Church Slavonic mitě alternately, mitǫsĭ , mitusŭ mutually; the Indo-European base common to these Sanskrit and Slavonic words is regarded by some as an extension of the Indo-European base meaning ‘to change or exchange’ (see i-mene adj. and adv.).In Old English and Middle English manuscripts the compounds of mis- (as of other prefixes) are frequently written as two words; use of a hyphen is sometimes found in Middle English. From the 16th cent. onwards the compounds are regularly printed as one word, with or without the hyphen, which becomes, however, less and less frequent, and is now employed chiefly in new or rarely used formations (mainly those in which s- begins the second element). The spellings mispel , mispend , etc., for mis-spell , mis-spend , etc., were once common and are found as late as the end of the 18th cent. The predominant meaning of the prefix in English, as in the other Germanic languages, is that of ‘amiss’, ‘wrong(ly)’, ‘bad(ly)’, ‘improper(ly)’, ‘perverse(ly)’, ‘mistaken(ly)’, and this is the only one now recognized in the formation of new compounds. But already in Old English there are instances of its use as a mere negative prefix and also as a pejorative intensive with words of sinister meaning (see senses 4 and 5). In early Middle English a great extension of the use of the prefix took place, mis- being freely combined with words of indigenous and of foreign origin alike. Many of the new compounds appear to have been suggested by Anglo-Norman or French formations with mes- (see mis- prefix²); for instance, misbelieve v. is probably after Anglo-Norman and Old French mescreire (French mécroire ), while it is uncertain whether miscount v. is a loan or an English formation. The most prolific period for the formation of mis- compounds was the 17th cent., to which a considerable number of those illustrated below belong; Bacon, Donne, and Bishop Hall are noteworthy as employing them extensively. They still continue to be formed with considerable freedom, but in certain cases ill- and mal- are now preferred where writers of earlier periods would have preferred mis- . In the Middle English period mis- became to some extent a separable element; there occur phrasal constructions such as inumen mis (see quot. a1250 at miss adv.) corresponding to compounds such as mis-numen (see, e.g., quot. a1325 at misnim v. a). (See further under miss adj., miss adv.) Even as late as the 16th cent., the prefix was sometimes combined with an adjective or adverb, as in the example very erroniouse and misopinions (see quot. 1545 at misopinion n.). A related phenomenon, of which an instance is found as late as the 17th cent., consists in the dropping of the prefix before the second of two compounds coupled together, e.g.:a1250 Ureisun ure Louerde (Lamb.) in R. Morris Old Eng. Homilies (1868) 1st Ser. 189 Of al þet ich abbe misseien mid eȝen, mid mine eren iherd, mid muþ ispeken, oþer ismaht, & wið neose ismelled, wiþ eini lim mis ifelid, & wið flehs isuneged.?1406 T. Hoccleve La Mâle Règle 228 in E. P. Hammond Eng. Verse between Chaucer & Surrey (1927) 63/2 Sotil deceyuours By whom the peple is mis gyed & led.c1422 T. Hoccleve Tale of Jerelaus (Durh.) l. 724 in Minor Poems (1970) i. 165 No wondir is thogh yee mis happe & cheeue.1614 J. Davies in W. Browne Shepheards Pipe sig. G3 For thou hast mis-said, or done. In Old English mis- was prefixed to verbs, active and passive participles, nouns of action and condition, and adjectives. In Middle English its compounding with agent-nouns and adverbs followed as a matter of course, and the principle of prefixing it to any word of the above classes, existing either actually or potentially, became soon established. Hence, in a group of formally related words such as misrepresent v., misrepresentation n., misrepresentative n., misrepresentative adj., misrepresenter n., etc., it is possible (unless there is historical evidence to the contrary) that each member may have been formed independently of any of the others. Substitution (often unjustified by the meaning) of mis- for dis- (perhaps assisted by the existence of such pairs as mislike and dislike , and later misbelieve and disbelieve ) has occurred in misguise n., mislander n., and mismay v. Compare misdain v., misdainful adj., and mislest v., and also miscry v. All those compounds of mis- with respect to which there is evidence of a continuous history during any period, or which belong to a group, are treated in their alphabetical places. Those illustrated in the present entry are for the most part ad hoc or occasional formations of obvious meaning.