Is there a case in which "instantaneously" can be used in which "instantly" cannot? If not, why does the former exist? If so, what are the circumstances dictating that usage?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
According to this post on the Grammarist, there is a difference between the two. They write:
Instantly is synonymous with immediately, but instantaneously is closer to with little delay. They give the following examples of each:
So, yes: there are cases when one should use instantly instead of instantaneously and vice versa. They represent two different ideas about when something happens. However, despite the fact that one could distinguish between them, one does not necessarily need to in practice:
I suspect that 'instantly' is the newcomer...
Instantaneously means taking zero time (or almost zero time). Instantly means occurring now.
You can use 'instantaneously' in contexts such as 'when the ball hits the wall, it instantaneously reverses direction', and I don't think you could possibly use 'instantly' instead (not in British English, anyway). Clearly, depending on the level of detail you're looking at, a ball bouncing might or might not be instantaneous (say, human reaction time vs atomic vibration time).
You can use 'instantly' in contexts such as 'the line for the movie will be forming over there instantly' and the process will take a long time - a lot longer than 'instantaneously'.
"Instantly" originally carried the added connotation of "persistently", in addition to "urgently." It only came to mean "immediately" some eighty or a hundred years after it was first introduced. Then, shortly after that, "instantaneously" was introduced, along with the words "simultaneously" and "spontaneously".
Basically, they mean the same thing, but if there is a difference it probably resides in the ancient connotation of "persistence" that "instantly" once held. "He was instantly transformed into a frog", or "his face instantly shifted to a furious expression"; contrast that to "it was an instantaneous event, past in a moment, never to be recaptured", or -- as above -- "instantaneously, the ball bounced from the wall and into the waiting arms of the goalkeeper."
They actually both mean "happening immediately". Perhaps the difference here might be just the tone. Instantaneously sounds a lot more formal than instantly.
protected by RegDwigнt♦ Sep 15 '12 at 20:16
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?