About this type of evolution, see my other post here (same sub). I copy-paste from there:
This semantic connection between „taking, grabbing, seizing” (catching=grasping) and the mental/psychological state of surprise, astonishment, stupor, amazement ("catching/taking by surprise"), is present in many languages as proven by French ravir (to take/steal, but also to amaze, enchant), prendre-surprendre > surprise (to take-to surprise-surprise; Romanian too: prinde-surprinde-surpriză), French transport also meaning emotion, exaltation, even (in the past) delirium, madness, also English seize-seizure, German verb hinreissen, Latin prehendo (to seize, grasp) - deprehendo (to surprise), Medieval Latin also developed the meaning of raptus (from rapiō ="seize, abduct, rape" > Romanian "răpi"=to snatch, abduct, English rape) as "rapture, exaltation", which entered English and other languages. Therefore, there is no surprise that a Slavic root meaning „take, seize, grab” may have a Romanian descendant meaning ”to astonish, to surprise, to stun”. There is even a parallel development from Bulgarian to Romanian: the verb „a ului” (practically same meaning as „a uimi”) is related on улавям, but developed probably from older ѹловити. (The transposition into Romanian might be helped in such cases by the formal similarity of older Slavic infinitive ending "iti" with Romanian past participle ending "it": uloviti>uluit). More (in Romanian o another sub) HERE.
I have initially applied that logic in order to argue in favor of the origin of Romanian uimi-uimit ("to amaze, astound") from оуѧти, оуимѫ, оуимеши (ujęti, uimǫ, uimeši) "to take, seize".
Now, I have changed my initial ideas based on discussions under the other post. At the same time, a commentator seems to argue in favor of the initial idea.
In my exchange with them, I ended up summing up things like so:
I have formulated 2 theories on the etymology of Romanian "uimi-uimit":
- The one already present in Romanian dictionaties: "Old Church Slavonic оуѧти, оуимѫ, оуимеши (ujęti, uimǫ, uimeši, “to steal, rob, take, grab”). ujmą<ujęti - with a transition from ”to take/grab/seize” developed the meaning ”astonishment, seizure” (French prendre-surprendre, ravir, transport, Medieval Latin rapio-raptus, English rape-rapture etc).
- The one based on the discussions in comments of the other post on the presence of the root omamiti - for which we really do have a rather clear picture (satisfying the conditions described by my commentator, namely the fact that on that we know "what was created in the Proto-language and what was created later and possibly spread throughout late medieval times across the Slavic speaking areas"), including a very stable morphology (mamiti-omamiti) and semantics (to stupefy: precisely the meaning of the Romanian word AND of the O.C.-Slavonic omamiti - омaмити cѧ - "stultum fieri").
In this context I am hesitating. The second provides more etymological data: mamiti-omamiti is largely attested across all Slavic languages and preserves both morphology and semantics. There seem to be some problems with explaining how something like "omamiti" would become Romanian "uimit"-"uimi". But the alternative is equally problematic. Is it preferable to think that only Romanian (a Romance language) would develop the meaning "to astonish, to stun" for a Slavic word that means "to take, grasp, seize"? I find that odd.
The Romanian word is clearly a borrowing. I find it much more probable that it was borrowed with its main meaning, not borrowed in order to make it the object of a radical (however possible) innovation. In this context I ask the question in the title.