To wit, how does "present again, bring back" (in
repraesentāre) semantically appertain to the notion of 'standing in the place of another'?
View attachment 15715''
@scherz0, I think that the problem arises with the (poor) definition of English "represent" that you are using; I don't like "standing in the place of another" at all. A better definition might be: "to serve as a sign or symbol of another
such that it brings the symbolized once again (that is, re-presents it)
before the mind". This involves the internalization of an external event, which is the mode of operation of signs and symbols. Instead of a physical/external re-presentation of something, the English lemma describes an internal, psychological re-presentation. From that, can you see the semantic connection? You may see, then, that the semantic shift from Latin
repraesentare to English
represent is not as great as you might have imagined. Inadequate definitions will always lead us astray.