Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

25%
+0 −4
Q&A How did in- + partire compound to mean "communicate as knowledge of information" (impart)?

What semantic notions underlie in- + partire 🡺 with "communicate as knowledge or information"? This semantic shift flummoxes me, because in- + partire "was not originally restricted to immaterial ...

0 answers  ·  posted 1y ago by PSTH‭  ·  edited 1y ago by PSTH‭

Question etymology Latin
#4: Post edited by user avatar PSTH‭ · 2022-09-17T17:03:40Z (over 1 year ago)
  • What semantic notions underlie _in-_ + _partire_ 🡺 with "**communicate as knowledge or information**"?
  • This semantic shift buffaloes me, for the reason that Etymonline
  • allegates: _in-_ + _partire_ "`was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities`". Undeniably, communication can't be physically divided or parted! Moreover, once you divide or part the original communication, you've doctored or mangled the original communication! Then if you communicate merely a DIVISION or PART of the communication, then you are MIScommunicating, because you aren't communicating the original whole communication! See why I am bafled?
  • >### impart (v.) [[on Etymonline]](https://www.etymonline.com/word/impart#etymonline_v_1549).
  • >
  • >early 15c., "to give a part of (one's possessions);" late 15c., "to share, take part in,"
  • from Old French _empartir, impartir_ "assign, allot, allocate, share out" (14c.),
  • from Late Latin _impartire_ (also _impertire_) "to share in, divide with another; communicate,"
  • from assimilated form of _in-_ "into, in" (from PIE root [*en](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*en?ref=etymonline_crossreference) "in")
  • \+ _partire_ "to divide, part" (from _pars_ "a part, piece, a share,"
  • from PIE root [*pere-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52860) (2) "to grant, allot").
  • >
  • >Meaning **"communicate as knowledge or information"** is from 1540s; the word `was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities`.
  • What semantic notions underlie _in-_ + _partire_ 🡺 with "**communicate as knowledge or information**"?
  • This semantic shift flummoxes me, because _in-_ + _partire_ "`was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities`". Undeniably, communication can't be physically divided or parted! Moreover, once you divide or part the original communication, you've doctored or mangled the original communication! Then if you communicate merely a DIVISION or PART of the communication, then you are MIScommunicating, because you aren't communicating the original whole communication!
  • >### impart (v.) [[on Etymonline]](https://www.etymonline.com/word/impart#etymonline_v_1549).
  • >
  • >early 15c., "to give a part of (one's possessions);" late 15c., "to share, take part in,"
  • from Old French _empartir, impartir_ "assign, allot, allocate, share out" (14c.),
  • from Late Latin _impartire_ (also _impertire_) "to share in, divide with another; communicate,"
  • from assimilated form of _in-_ "into, in" (from PIE root [*en](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*en?ref=etymonline_crossreference) "in")
  • \+ _partire_ "to divide, part" (from _pars_ "a part, piece, a share,"
  • from PIE root [*pere-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52860) (2) "to grant, allot").
  • >
  • >Meaning **"communicate as knowledge or information"** is from 1540s; the word `was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities`.
#3: Post edited by user avatar PSTH‭ · 2022-07-18T02:38:20Z (over 1 year ago)
  • What semantic notions underlie _in-_ + _partire_ 🡺 with "communicate as knowledge or information"?
  • This semantic shift buffaloes me, for the reason that Etymonline
  • allegates: _in-_ + _partire_" was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities". Undeniably, communication can't be physically divided or parted! Moreover, once you divide or part the original communication, you've doctored or mangled the original communication! Then if you communicate merely a DIVISION or PART of the communication, then you are MIScommunicating, because you aren't communicating the original whole communication! See why I am bafled?
  • >### impart (v.) [[on Etymonline]](https://www.etymonline.com/word/impart#etymonline_v_1549).
  • >
  • >early 15c., "to give a part of (one's possessions);" late 15c., "to share, take part in,"
  • from Old French _empartir, impartir_ "assign, allot, allocate, share out" (14c.),
  • from Late Latin _impartire_ (also _impertire_) "to share in, divide with another; communicate,"
  • from assimilated form of _in-_ "into, in" (from PIE root [*en](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*en?ref=etymonline_crossreference) "in")
  • \+ _partire_ "to divide, part" (from _pars_ "a part, piece, a share,"
  • from PIE root [*pere-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52860) (2) "to grant, allot").
  • >
  • >Meaning "communicate as knowledge or information" is from 1540s; the word was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities
  • What semantic notions underlie _in-_ + _partire_ 🡺 with "**communicate as knowledge or information**"?
  • This semantic shift buffaloes me, for the reason that Etymonline
  • allegates: _in-_ + _partire_ "`was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities`". Undeniably, communication can't be physically divided or parted! Moreover, once you divide or part the original communication, you've doctored or mangled the original communication! Then if you communicate merely a DIVISION or PART of the communication, then you are MIScommunicating, because you aren't communicating the original whole communication! See why I am bafled?
  • >### impart (v.) [[on Etymonline]](https://www.etymonline.com/word/impart#etymonline_v_1549).
  • >
  • >early 15c., "to give a part of (one's possessions);" late 15c., "to share, take part in,"
  • from Old French _empartir, impartir_ "assign, allot, allocate, share out" (14c.),
  • from Late Latin _impartire_ (also _impertire_) "to share in, divide with another; communicate,"
  • from assimilated form of _in-_ "into, in" (from PIE root [*en](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*en?ref=etymonline_crossreference) "in")
  • \+ _partire_ "to divide, part" (from _pars_ "a part, piece, a share,"
  • from PIE root [*pere-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52860) (2) "to grant, allot").
  • >
  • >Meaning **"communicate as knowledge or information"** is from 1540s; the word `was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities`.
#2: Post edited by user avatar PSTH‭ · 2022-07-18T02:37:33Z (over 1 year ago)
  • What semantic notions underlie _in-_ + _partire_ 🡺 with "communicate as knowledge or information"?
  • This semantic shift bufaloes me, for the reason that Etymonline
  • allegates: _in-_ + _partire_" was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities". Undeniably, communication can't be physically divided or parted! Moreover, once you divide or part the original communication, you've doctored or mangled the original communication! Then if you communicate merely a DIVISION or PART of the communication, then you are MIScommunicating, because you aren't communicating the original whole communication! See why I am bafled?
  • >### impart (v.) [[on Etymonline]](https://www.etymonline.com/word/impart#etymonline_v_1549).
  • >
  • >early 15c., "to give a part of (one's possessions);" late 15c., "to share, take part in,"
  • from Old French _empartir, impartir_ "assign, allot, allocate, share out" (14c.),
  • from Late Latin _impartire_ (also _impertire_) "to share in, divide with another; communicate,"
  • from assimilated form of _in-_ "into, in" (from PIE root [*en](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*en?ref=etymonline_crossreference) "in")
  • \+ _partire_ "to divide, part" (from _pars_ "a part, piece, a share,"
  • from PIE root [*pere-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52860) (2) "to grant, allot").
  • >
  • >Meaning "communicate as knowledge or information" is from 1540s; the word was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities
  • What semantic notions underlie _in-_ + _partire_ 🡺 with "communicate as knowledge or information"?
  • This semantic shift buffaloes me, for the reason that Etymonline
  • allegates: _in-_ + _partire_" was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities". Undeniably, communication can't be physically divided or parted! Moreover, once you divide or part the original communication, you've doctored or mangled the original communication! Then if you communicate merely a DIVISION or PART of the communication, then you are MIScommunicating, because you aren't communicating the original whole communication! See why I am bafled?
  • >### impart (v.) [[on Etymonline]](https://www.etymonline.com/word/impart#etymonline_v_1549).
  • >
  • >early 15c., "to give a part of (one's possessions);" late 15c., "to share, take part in,"
  • from Old French _empartir, impartir_ "assign, allot, allocate, share out" (14c.),
  • from Late Latin _impartire_ (also _impertire_) "to share in, divide with another; communicate,"
  • from assimilated form of _in-_ "into, in" (from PIE root [*en](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*en?ref=etymonline_crossreference) "in")
  • \+ _partire_ "to divide, part" (from _pars_ "a part, piece, a share,"
  • from PIE root [*pere-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52860) (2) "to grant, allot").
  • >
  • >Meaning "communicate as knowledge or information" is from 1540s; the word was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities
#1: Initial revision by user avatar PSTH‭ · 2022-07-18T02:36:34Z (over 1 year ago)
How did in- + partire compound to mean "communicate as knowledge of information" (impart)? 
What semantic notions underlie _in-_ + _partire_ 🡺 with "communicate as knowledge or information"?

This semantic shift bufaloes me, for the reason that Etymonline 
allegates: _in-_ + _partire_" was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities". Undeniably, communication can't be physically divided or parted! Moreover, once you divide or part the original communication,  you've doctored or mangled the original communication!  Then if you communicate merely a DIVISION or PART of the communication, then you are MIScommunicating, because you aren't communicating the original whole communication! See why I am bafled? 



>### impart (v.) [[on Etymonline]](https://www.etymonline.com/word/impart#etymonline_v_1549).
>
>early 15c., "to give a part of (one's possessions);" late 15c., "to share, take part in,"    
from Old French _empartir, impartir_ "assign, allot, allocate, share out" (14c.),     
from Late Latin _impartire_ (also _impertire_) "to share in, divide with another; communicate,"     
from assimilated form of _in-_ "into, in" (from PIE root [*en](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*en?ref=etymonline_crossreference) "in")     
\+ _partire_ "to divide, part" (from _pars_ "a part, piece, a share,"   
from PIE root [*pere-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52860) (2) "to grant, allot").
>
>Meaning "communicate as knowledge or information" is from 1540s; the word was not originally restricted to immaterial things but now usually is only in reference to qualities