Re: time distinctions

"H. S. Teoh" wrote:
> But on this note... I wonder if it's actually possible to have a language
> *without* imperatives?
It's certainly possible to get around it.  Consider the way that in
English we often use pseudo-questions like "Could you close the door for
me?".  Of course, "could you" could be said to fill the role of
imperative.  In fact, I could see "couldja" evolving into a synonym of
"please", or even replacing it.  Probably would lose the
question-intonation as well.  I suspect, however, that any language
without obvious imperatives would merely have less-obvious ones.

Historically, the imperative suffix -tli evolved as an optative, e.g.,
"May she prosper".  This came to be used as a polite imperative, "May
you come here", and is now imperative/optative.  It is related to the
verb tlí, in fact, historically, the main verb was incorporated into the
verb tlí (to hope), but later stress shifted back to the main verb, and
agreement came to be connected with the main verb (originally, always
first person singular, since it was "I hope that ..."), thus -tli became
merely a suffix.

But, that history behind it ensures that the second person suffixes are
still used.

--
"Their bodies did not age, but they became afeared of everything and
anything.  For partaking in any activity at all could threaten their
precious and ageless bodies! ... Their victory over death was a hollow
one."
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor