3 ms·

Since all these languages were fathered by Slavic, I would think of it less in terms of a group of people "borrowing a word" from another and then "changing its

Since all these languages were fathered by Slavic, I would think of it less in terms of a group of people "borrowing a word" from another and then "changing its meaning," and more like branches of a tree, the root a stable association between phonemes and concept. So, for a word like zapomnit' (запомнить/zapomnieć) - we have prefix 'za' and root 'pomni-'. За is a preposition with meaning = behind. Помни- is a derivative of память (pamat') with meaning = memory. Putting those two together, we have "behind memory." Now parse what those two sounds, "behind memory", can mean - does this phrase mean something that you fail to retrieve from the back recesses of your memory? Or is it something you stash into the back of your memory for safekeeping? Russian speakers and Polish speakers seem to have arrived at opposite interpretations of this phrase. However, it is obvious that they started from the same place (behind + memory).

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> За is a preposition with meaning = behind. In the case of Russian, the za here is not a preposition literally meaning ‘behind’ but rather an already fully grammaticalized marker of inchoative aspect that one encounters in a number of other verbs like засыпать ‘to fall asleep’. Russian запомнить is analyzable as ‘start’ + ‘remembering’.
- tropdrop 7y ago
  Sure. However, for this simple illustration of how sound bites evolve in meaning over time, I think it makes more sense to look at the semantics of the phoneme "za" rather than the prefix's technical grammatical meaning (though your addendum is useful and correct).
  - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
    > the semantics of the phoneme "za" The thing is, the “phoneme” [sic] za has an array of meanings, and this was true already by the Proto-Slavic stage. Sure, one could recommend as a mnemonic device that a learner see Russian zapomnit’ ‘commit to memory’ as a compound of ‘behind’ + ‘remember’, but that isn’t the actual etymology of the word. It is a folk etymology.
    - tropdrop 7y ago
      You're not really arguing with me here - my point is that 'za' had a multitude of meanings prior to the split of West and East Slavic.
      - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
        Yes, I am arguing with you here. Your misuse of terminology like “phoneme”, and your inappropriate suggestion that the meaning ‘behind’ has any role here, merited being called out so that other people reading this thread, who may not be familiar with Slavic diachrony or historical linguistics in general, know to ignore your points.
        tropdrop 7y ago
        It is quite possible to be extremely knowledgeable about a field and dole out nuggets of wisdom in such a way as to inspire others to take more interest and share their ideas with you. It is also possible to demoralize and silence newcomers by taking every opportunity to show how far you are above them, and how unworthy they are of your superior knowledge base. One of those approaches leads to more productive thought and breakthroughs than the other.
        Mediterraneo10 7y ago
        You will find plenty of linguists who feel that misusing terminology and making inaccurate claims like you did does more harm than good. It would have better had those comments not been posted at all, but once they are posted, then someone has to call them out as flawed. Calling them out as flawed is not “showing how far I [or anyone else] is above” a particular poster. It is simply an attempt to help the community here out by encouraging readers to get their information from some other, more reliable source. You’ll find that HN tends to react badly to inaccurate posting on any scientific field, and one of the great things about this venue is that there are many trained people in various sciences who can call out wrong as wrong.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

> За is a preposition with meaning = behind. In the case of Russian, the za here is not a preposition literally meaning ‘behind’ but rather an already fully grammaticalized marker of inchoative aspect that one encounters in a number of other verbs like засыпать ‘to fall asleep’. Russian запомнить is analyzable as ‘start’ + ‘remembering’.

tropdrop 7y ago
Sure. However, for this simple illustration of how sound bites evolve in meaning over time, I think it makes more sense to look at the semantics of the phoneme "za" rather than the prefix's technical grammatical meaning (though your addendum is useful and correct).
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > the semantics of the phoneme "za" The thing is, the “phoneme” [sic] za has an array of meanings, and this was true already by the Proto-Slavic stage. Sure, one could recommend as a mnemonic device that a learner see Russian zapomnit’ ‘commit to memory’ as a compound of ‘behind’ + ‘remember’, but that isn’t the actual etymology of the word. It is a folk etymology.
  - tropdrop 7y ago
    You're not really arguing with me here - my point is that 'za' had a multitude of meanings prior to the split of West and East Slavic.
    - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
      Yes, I am arguing with you here. Your misuse of terminology like “phoneme”, and your inappropriate suggestion that the meaning ‘behind’ has any role here, merited being called out so that other people reading this thread, who may not be familiar with Slavic diachrony or historical linguistics in general, know to ignore your points.
      - tropdrop 7y ago
        It is quite possible to be extremely knowledgeable about a field and dole out nuggets of wisdom in such a way as to inspire others to take more interest and share their ideas with you. It is also possible to demoralize and silence newcomers by taking every opportunity to show how far you are above them, and how unworthy they are of your superior knowledge base. One of those approaches leads to more productive thought and breakthroughs than the other.
        Mediterraneo10 7y ago
        You will find plenty of linguists who feel that misusing terminology and making inaccurate claims like you did does more harm than good. It would have better had those comments not been posted at all, but once they are posted, then someone has to call them out as flawed. Calling them out as flawed is not “showing how far I [or anyone else] is above” a particular poster. It is simply an attempt to help the community here out by encouraging readers to get their information from some other, more reliable source. You’ll find that HN tends to react badly to inaccurate posting on any scientific field, and one of the great things about this venue is that there are many trained people in various sciences who can call out wrong as wrong.