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 2y ago by PSTH‭ · edited 2y ago by PSTH‭

Question etymology Latin

#4: Post edited by

PSTH‭ · 2022-09-17T17:03:40Z (about 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

PSTH‭ · 2022-07-18T02:38:20Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

~~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

PSTH‭ · 2022-07-18T02:37:33Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

PSTH‭ · 2022-07-18T02:36:34Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

etymology Latin

Communities

Post History