Re: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent) Cebuano uvulars and Guarani info request)

Joe wrote:

> Roger Mills wrote:
>
>> Tamas Racsko wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 19 Sep 2004 J"rg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@WEB...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Quality verbs (used for adjectives) take S_o
>>>>>
>>>>> "Transitive and Intransitive verbs may be placed in the imperative.
>>>>> Quality
>>>>> verbs cannot."
>>>>>
>>>>> This sounds pretty cool!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And it makes sense, as the quality verbs are not about actually
>>>> *doing*
>>>> something.  It is the same way in my conlang Old Albic (a fluid-S
>>>> language).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  AFAIK |tasy| 'be-ill' is a quality verb in Guarani: |xe rasy| 'I
>>> am-ill', |nde rasy| 'you are-ill', |hasy| < *|ha'e tasy| 'he/she is-
>>> ill', |nda.ore.rasy.i| 'we-are-not-ill'.
>>>
>>>  If this verb has no imperative, how can English sentence 'Do not
>>> be ill!' is translated into Guarani?  Or in Old Albic?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The problem is, lots of "quality" verbs, in English and many languages,
>> can't have imperatives either, and it may be a near-universal. There are
>> questions of logic, real-world possibility, applicability to humans,
>> volition.  Thus, "don't be ill/sick" is not an acceptable sentence, just
>> like "don't be green", "don't be intelligent".  Similarly, "don't know
>> that!", "don't understand that!"-- some in this last class are
>> acceptable as
>> positives, though rather formal.
>>
>>
>
> Au contraire.  All of the above are quite grammatical.  Nonsensical, of
> course, but definitely grammatical.
>
>
I should probably add 'in my ideolect'.