Re: past tense imperative

Hi!

René Uittenbogaard <ruittenb@...> writes:
> > Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> writes:
> >...
> > Thinking again, I'd probably include an imperative in some irrealis mood
> > in past perfect in a conlang.
>
> Is that possible? The imperative is a mood by itself, right? Can the
> imperative be used together with another mood?
OK, first let me get my own nomenclature right: I meant 'irrealis
modality'.  You'd normally further distinguish between 'mood' and
'modality', where 'modality' would be the conceptual category
(e.g. 'irrealis'), while 'mood' would be the implementation
(e.g. 'subjunctive') of 'modality' in a certain language.  'mood'
seems to encode a second category as well: _speech act_.

_Imperative_ would premarily implement as some kind of _speech act_,
namely a _command_ thus belonging to the same category as
_propositional_, _interrogative_ (a question), _definitional_ and
_optative_ (a wish), etc.  _Modaliy_ would be considered a different
category, containing _realis_, _irrealis_, etc.

_Moods_ would be _indicative_, _subjunctive_, etc., depending on
language.

Not all (not many?) languages distinguish them clearly, I assume.
(But then, many IE langs put tense and aspect in the same pot and stir
well.)

ObConlang: in Qthyn|gai, evidence and speech act are taken to be the
same category, where evidence is simply a finer distinction of the
propositional speech act.  Both have to do with how the truth value of
the sentence is to be interpreted.  For the proposition, where the
clause is stated to be 'true', an evidencial is required in Qthyn|gai
to make clear how the speaker comes to state that it is true.

Take again a normal propositional speech act, which means that a
clause is stated to be true.  You could still use irrealis modality:

    I would've gone to the cinema (if ...).

This sentence is still stated to be true.  Although it is irrealis.
Propositional speech act just means:

    (It is true that) I would've gone to the cinema.

The 'would' changes the *way* the truth of the sentence is to be
proven, but does not effect the *interpretation* of the sentence's
truth value.

So if you were to prove that the above sentence is true, you would not
have to show that someone went to the cinema in *reality*, but that a
*hypothetical* situation exists.  So _modality_ changes the universe
in which to evaluate the truth value (_indicative_ mood, implementing
_realis_ modality, meaning 'this' universe and reality), while _speech
act_ defines how the truth value is to be interpreted.

This is how _speech act_, _modality_ and _mood_ can be distinguished.

Another example: a question would ask for the truth value.
Independently of the modality:

    Would you've gone to the cinema?
    (Is it true that) you would have gone to the cinema?

An _imperative_ demands the sentence to be true:

    Go to the cinema!
    (I order that) you go to the cinema.

You *could* use this with a different modality (and thus a different
mood):

    (I order that) you would've gone to the cinema.

Only this is stupid semantically, I think, since you cannot order
this. :-)  Well -- maybe if you're God, you can.  The bible has a lot
of interesting imperatives, anyway. :-)))

> > Thus in German, I'd approximate that
> > with 'Konjunktiv' ('subjunctive' in English?):
> >
> >    *Hätt' das dann auch gesagt!
> >    *Wär dann halt nicht gegangen!
> >
> > Of course, these are ungrammatical, but nice for a conlang, as I said.
>
> They sound quite well to my untrained-in-German ears.
It is totally ungrammatical, I can assume you! :-)))

> I may even be tempted to use these :)
Probably due to direct correspondence in Dutch?  I'm often tempted in
the same way to use constructions in Dutch that Dutch people find
quite wrong for the most interesting reasons. :-)

>  > Toi! Ai travaillé quand je serai revenu! = You! I want you to have
>  > worked when I'll be back
>
> This makes *lots* of sense! This is rightful use of the perfective
> imperative. The Dutch example BTW was also perfective, but Dutch cannot
> use this construction.
It'd be a bit strange, and definitely not in use, but not really fully
ungrammatical in German:

   Werd das fertig haben, wenn ich zurück bin!

> Another thought crossed my mind: are perfective verbs in Russian ever
> used in the imperative? What do they mean? Examples?
I'd assume they are.  They'd demand the completion of an action.
(Maybe in ?'Popyl!' for 'Drink up!', but I'm not sure, my Russian is
bad.)

**Henrik

Reply