Re: Some isolating verb patterns

Hi!

Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> writes:
> Quoting Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>:
>
> > Actually, I was thinking of leaving both unmarked, but
> > use the SV order for the present and the VS order for
> > the imperative. I mentioned this in another thread
> > (Let's construction). (relevant lines quoted below)
>
> Well, imperatives usually don't have explicit subjects, do they?
Well, usually, usually... :-) In Qthen|gai at least, they do have
subjects.  *Usually* :-), you just leave them out, but you'd do that
normal sentences, too, because Qthen|gai is pro-drop (for its pronouns
at least).  However, valence infixes would still clearly mark an
existing agent if it's an imperative proper as known from English.

Ancient Greek does not seem to care as much about treating subjects in
imperatives specially -- this creates some problems translating
e.g. Bible texts properly.  E.g. 'Let there be light!' is imperative
in Greek, but becomes some form of optative in many other languages,
because they don't allow imperative here.

The Pater Noster is imperative, too.  People on this list recently
corrected my translations... :-)

Also in Icelandic, the subject 'þú' has merged with the imperative
form -- it has become a suffix -- but it is recognisably there.  In
Chinese, the subject can also be expressed in imperatives (though it
can be left out as well, but Chinese is pro-drop, too):

  Ni  gen  wo lai!  / Gen  wo lai!
  you with me come  / with me come!
  'Come with me!'

Oh, and in formal German addressing, you'd express the subject
explicitly, too:

  Kommen Sie     mit!
  Come   you=HON with!
  'Come with me!'

Errrm, funny, I just notice this *is* VS order where the normal
proposition 'Sie kommen mit' uses SV!

So I think VS order is perfectly feasible here to express imperatives.
German does!

**Henrik