Re: Imperatives, not only negative (was: Noli-me-tangere)

Raymond A. Brown wrote:

[...]
> >Interesting. What exactly do "ddim" and "mo'r" stand for?
>
> "ddim' /DIm/ is "dim" /dIm/ with initial 'soft mutation'.  'Dim' like the
> French 'rien' (<-- Latin: 'rem') once meant 'anything' but, because of its
> use in negative constructions, now means: 'nothing' or 'no' (adjective, in
> the sense of German 'kein' - _not_ like German 'nein') and with verbs is
> used just like 'pas' in the French 'ne....pas' construction.
>
> "Mo'r" stands for "mo yr" where "yr" = 'the'.
> "Mo" is derived from 'ddim o' where 'o' is a preposition meaning "of" in a
> strictly _partitive_ sense (can never be used to denote possession).  "mo"
> replaces "ddim" if the direct object is definite, e.g.
> Gwelais i mo Steffan = I didn't see Steffan (literally: I saw nothing of
> Stephen).
Now, I understand. Thank you.
Is Welsh your native language?

> >Why the first time "phynais" and the second time "phrynais" (similarly
> >"llafrau" and "llayfrau")? Has it something to do with "ddim" and "mo'r"?
>
> Nah - just to do with bad typing  :=(
>
> Both should've been 'phrynais' and both should've been 'llyfrau'.   Sorry!
De rien!

[...]

[snip - Rnihono:n imperatives]

> I like it :)
Me too. :-)

> And I seem to recall that Schleyer equipped Volapuek with three-fold
> normal, polite & peremptory imperatives.  This is fine in an artlang but
> IMHO rather overdoing it in a conlang designed as Schleyer's was as an IAL.
Peremptory? In Rnihono:n there is something like this. I have named it "strong form". This
form concerns all verbs, not only imperatives, e.g.:
khi s.odho:si s.odho:si-n.a! 'we find him, no matter the cost!'

As regards to an impolite form, Rniho consider as impolite if someone is not
using personal suffixes, i.e.:
1.      -n.a
2.      -the
3.sing. -(i)l
3.pl.   -(i)rra

--
P. M. ARKTAYG