The verb prefix en- seems redundant to me. For example

  • a book titled 'Something'
  • a book entitled 'Something'

Are these identical in meaning, or is there some nuance?

  • Entitled vs. titled : When they are synonymous with named or called, there is no substantive difference between entitled and titled. Some people object to this use entitled, but the objection is baseless. The use of entitled to mean named goes back centuries, and entitled was in fact the preferred term until recently. Google Books uncovers only 23 instances of the phrase “book titled” in works published in the 19th century, against some 31,000 instances of “book entitled.” (Titled in those days was much more often used to mean having a noble title.) (The Grammarist)
    – user 66974
    Commented Aug 12, 2019 at 16:37
  • 1
    Possible duplicate of When is it appropriate to use "titled" vs. "entitled"? (the specific question; the general question is too broad). There is also a lack of research shown. Commented Aug 21, 2019 at 15:46

1 Answer 1


Sometimes en- is redundant, and sometimes not. Also, redundancy is not always a bad thing.

There are fairly large differences in meaning between force(d) and enforce(d), treat(ed) and entreat(ed), trust(ed) and entrust(ed), fold(ed) and enfold(ed).

There is a previous question about the usage of title(d) and entitle(d) that you may want to look at: When is it appropriate to use "titled" vs. "entitled"? In the context of your example, either could be used with no difference in meaning.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.