What semantic notions underlie 'joining together' and 'impose, enjoin'?
I quote Etymonline. To wit, how did
in- "on" (from PIE root *en "in")
+ iungere "to join together" (from nasalized form of PIE root *yeug- "to join")
compound to mean
"impose (on), inflict; subject to; assign (to)"
?
Solution 1:
The first few OED entries tell the tale.
trans. To join together. Obs.
In early use: To impose (a penalty, task, duty, or obligation); said esp. of a spiritual director
(to enjoin penance, etc.). Hence in mod. use: To prescribe authoritatively and with emphasis (an action, a course of conduct, state of feeling, etc.).To prohibit, forbid (a thing); to prohibit (a person) from (a person or thing, or some action).
Now only in Law: To prohibit or restrain by an injunction.
So the way it worked was, first it was just joining together, then it became joining a rule with a person, then it became specialized on the nature of the rule, limiting it to a negative rule -- Don't Do X
. Prohibitions have always constituted a pretty prominent variety of rule, after all.
OK?