Yes, Scholiast, that's what I thought as well, but I recently have been made to understand that it has taken the meanings "immediately" and "instantly" somewhere in the Latin corpus. Starless' reference seems to confirm this:...iugiter is a rare, but classically attested (Seneca, Apuleius), adverb meaning not 'immediately' or 'instantly', rather 'continuously', 'without intermission'...
I wonder if there are any search tools that one can employ to find examples of a given Latin lemma applied to a particular semantic field. I must admit, that I cannot understand how an adverb derived from iūgis, which has the meanings: (ceaseless, continual, perpetual; endless, everlasting) can take on a meaning from an altogether different, and seemingly contradictory (at least to endless and everlasting), semantic field as is represented by "immediately" and "instantly". Gadzooks! This is a job for SuperAhvalj! (Perhaps, at least, he can sine a bit of light in this darkness.) I would also like to find examples wthin the corpus of iūgis taking the sense of "immediately" and "instantly". I have seen within two sources now, that it can do so, so the references must exist, surely...perhaps in Late or Medieval Latin, something like Petrarch, perhaps???
iugum from the IE yugóm ...is no longer generally accepted, but rather the new thinking is that iūgis is believed to derive from the IE collocation h₂yu-gʷih₃ (“long life”) , read Weiss' excellent treatment here: http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/weiss/Weiss_1994_Life_everlasting.pdf(related to the root iug- as in iugum, 'yoke'), so 'joined up'.
That's why we have google. Parentalia 19.6; Commemoratio professorum Burdigalensium 15.14
Thanks, exgerman.That's why we have google. Parentalia 19.6; Commemoratio professorum Burdigalensium 15.14
Yes, I can appreciate your reasoning... I guess what bothers me about it isn't the jump from "continuously" (iugiter) to "immediately" (iugiter), as much as the jump from "to live for a long time" (h₂yu-gʷih₃), which expresses a temporally long, eternal/durative aspect, to "immediately" (iugiter), which expresses a temporally short, instantaneous, aspect. That is, perhaps, an example of my "comparing apples to oranges", though.In my view, joined up/without intermission and immediately do not really exclude each other:
something happens continuously, without intermission>without anything in the meantime>immediately. From the original ''joined up'' to ''immediately'' the transition looks rather easy.
Interestingly enough, even my huge paper Latin-Italian dictionary (one of the most authoritative in my day, with lots of direct quotes for each entry) only cites poet Ausonius using iūgĭtĕr as "immediately", with no specification as to where he used it.
Thanks, for that, guys! I wanted to verify that as an appropriate sense of the term, through use in the Latin corpus. If any more instances crop up, please post a reference here... Ausonius is a Late Latin reference. If anyone can think of a classical reference for this usage of iugiter, please post that. Thanks.That's why we have google. Parentalia 19.6; Commemoratio professorum Burdigalensium 15.14
I'm happy that you enjoyed that read. I thought the paper quite convincing and well-argued....with the citation from Weiss' brilliant article, which I had never known of, never mind read), made me think again, of course.
Ah! You have asked the salient question. Any confusion which existed by the time of Early Latin, and certainly by the Classical period, however, might be based on a semantic connection already lost by that time ( and, perhaps lost even by the time of Proto-Italic?). Certainly, Latin iugum, and its antecedent, IE yugóm, both suggest, in addition to "a joining" of beasts of burden, "a continuity" between the yoked beasts. Yugóm is from the perfective IE root yewg- ("to join, to yoke, to tie together"). Rix, however, has suggested (1976) the reconstructed form hyugóm (with laryngeal), which if true, would seem would make the IE root thereof: hyewg-. The extended root form of the first element of h₂yu-gʷih₃, h₂eyu-/ h₂óyu-, is indeed: h₂yew-. Of course -óm (Latin -um)is the neuter ( and, so, presumably nominalizing) suffix in the IE tradition. All this leads one to regard with suspicion, a possible semantic connection between h₂yu-gʷih₃ on the one hand, and the noun hyugóm (yugóm) on the other.A subversive question now arises: given the likelihood of dialectical variants in different parts of the Latin Sprachraum, and that Latin itself is naturally a stress-based rather than a quantity-based language, may there not have been already in antiquity some confusion between the stems and their meanings?