Re: Imperatives... does this work?

On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:31:38AM -0700, Nihil Sum wrote:
> Wondering if this makes sense:
>
> When indirectly quoting imperatives in Rhean, I've decided to keep the
> imperative form.
That makes sense. My L1 (Hokkien) works that way sometimes, too. :-)
I suspect it's an IE phenomenon to change quoted imperatives into
infinitives or some other verb form, but someone better-clued should step
up and (dis)prove me.

[snip]
> So the indirect one, expressed in English by "I said to go get coffee" is in
> Rhean "I said that [(imperative) go get coffee]".
Makes sense to me.

> Now HERE's a trickier one... and this one I will have to change if someone
> can show me that this doesn't work:
>
> Du kofin migekyuryem c'u zduait?
> that coffee get-go-1s.IMP (qu.) say-2s.PAST?
> Did you say to go get coffee?
>
> In other words, "Did you say go-get[first person singular imperative]
> coffee?"
I don't see a problem with this at all.

[snip]
> Now, on its own the third person imperative "Lak'udu yuryes'" would mean
> "let him go to Hell," or "may he go to Hell"... The direct quote shows the
> speaker's exact words when saying "(you) Go to Hell!" and thus the
> imperative is in the third person. But the indirect quote uses the third
> person imperative.
> Does this make sense?
Yes.

> Are there any other languages that do it this way?
I don't know of any.

> Should I ditch this approach?
Why should you?

> Because it seems to me that this sentence:
> Du Lak'udu yurye tant radaim.
> That Hell-DAT go-2s.IMP him-DAT tell-1s.PAST
>
> ... imples the meaning "I told him that YOU (the listener) can go to Hell."
> In other words, in his (the third person referred to) presence, I said
> "Lak'udu yuryes'" (3s-IMP), referring at that time, in third person, to you.
In my (admittedly rather limited) knowledge of natlangs, indirect
discourse often change 2nd person in the quoted discourse to 3rd. There is
probably a good reason for it, too, since ambiguities can arise, as you
point out here.

> Du Lak'udu yuryes' tant radaim.
> That Hell-DAT go-3s.IMP him-DAT tell-1s.PAST
> I told him to go to Hell.
> (I told him that he may go to Hell? -- perhaps is a better way of looking at
> it)
OK, this makes sense.

> And so... with the first person singular imperative (which is seldom used on
> its own, although first person plural imperative is quite common):
>
> Du kofin migekyurye mu zduaim.
> That coffee-ACC get-go-2s.IMP not say-1s.PAST
> I didn't say to go get coffee.
>
> the listener replies:
>
> Ak' du kofin MU migekuryem mu zduait.
> But that coffee-ACC NOT get-go-1s.IMP not say-2s.PAST
> But you didn't say NOT to go get coffee.
>
> ...using the FIRST person imperative.
[snip]

Hmm, this seems more like direct discourse than indirect. I'd like to
exemplify with an Ebisedian example, but Ebisedian doesn't have a true
imperative and doesn't mark person on verbs, so it wouldn't quite be
relevant here.


T

--
Many open minds should be closed for repairs. -- K5 user

Reply