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

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.

Reply