Re: Theory about the evolution of languages

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:03:56 -0400, Afian <yann_kiraly@...> wrote:
> Well, I said such a language wouldn't need an Imperative. Let's imagine a
> language that has a vocative unsing the ending ne.It also has these words:
> ti=dog and tef=fetch. So, we could make the following sentence: "Tine
> tef!". "Fetch, dog." If we only had a nominative ( ending fe) the dog
> would suddenly be in the third person (let's say, for convenience, that
> the verb isn't conjugated) "Tife tef." The dog fetches. Here, we would
> need an imperative , let's say the suffix sa is added to the verb: "Tife
> tefsa!" Fetch, dog. You see what I mean?
"Need" is entirely subjective.

Any case, no, I'm not sure what you mean.
You have:

      Ti-ne   tef
      dog-VOC fetch
      "Fetch, dog" (assumed imperative)

      Ti-fe   tef
      dog-NOM fetch
      "The dog fetches" (imperative not assumed)

      Ti-fe   tef-sa
      dog-NOM fetch-IMP
      "Fetch, dog" (overt imperative)

What about sentences where you can't assume an imperative?

      Mark-ne  tunk-ot   son west
      mark-VOC heart-ACC her break

Does this mean "Mark, you are breaking her heart" (imperative not assumed) or
"Mark, break her heart" (imperative assumed) ? You would need context to tell;
and in a case like this, there may not be enough context--are we chiding Mark,
are we telling him because he is oblivious...

Now it's possible you could have an unmarked imperative that is the same form as a
present tense form, but in such a case the language is actually ambiguous, and
would have ways to make clear whether an imperative is meant or not, just
syntactic ways, not grammaticalized ones.

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/