No, not all medical words have a prefix.
no they dont
No; a word may not need a prefix. Note: A word root cannot stand alone and must include a suffix to complete the term.
false
No, but a root word cannot stand alone, therefore, a suffix must be added to complete the term. A prefix is not always necessary.
But what about Femur? Vein? Syncope?
What is the suffix to those?
No; it needs a word root because the word root indicates the part of the body involved.
No. Medical terms like heart, femur, and os don't have prefixes or suffixes.
No, not every medical term has a suffix.
I'd say yes. Even the word Medical has the suffix -ical whic means "pertaining to."
Yes it's true. They are used for clarification of such medical terminology. However, sometimes more than one prefix describes the same term.
Yea
It only has a prefix. "View" is the root of the word.
It only has a suffix, which is -y.
There is a prefix only [un-]
Yes, "inward" does not have a suffix. It is a standalone word that describes something directed or moving towards the inside.
It depends. It could be both. Like aerial only has a prefix.
Well, there is no prefix. There is only the suffix -ful. The foot word is hand. But it is not a prefix.
The prefix in the word "unpopular" is "un-," which means not.
There is no prefix, only a suffix. The root word of mixture is mix, and the suffix is ture.
.I and III only The prefix is stuck on the beginning of the word. The suffix is stuck on the end of the word. The word is person. The prefix is im. The suffix is al. im-person-al The prefix is im-, meaning "not." The suffix is -al, meaning "of or pertaining to." Therefore, the full definition will come out to, "Not pertaining to one person."
the suffix is ed but there happens to be no prefix and the root is famish thx i hoped i help even though im 11 and only in sixth grade
There's no prefix in the word "beautiful". There's only a suffix, which is "-ful".
it dates from 1640 & hacket in his life of archbishop Williams 1693 said it was coined by presbyterians