The function of non-canonical imperatives in the languages of Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

It ought to be noted that while the third person imperative here is viewed from a Finnish perspective, other languages in other language families view these imperative functions similarly, such as Irish, one of the few European, and to separate it from Finnish one of the few Indo-European, languages with personal distinctions in all six persons as well as the impersonal form. The examples are glossed in their subjunctive correspondences to illuminate the difference; both are to be considered imperatives. Regard the following: Irish: (Go) fantar anseo; tá sé go fuar amuigh! (Go) fantar anseo tá sé go fuar amuigh GO wait/IMPRS/PRES/SBJV here is it GO cold outside ‘Let one wait here/let it be waited here; it is cold outside.’ Labhraíodh sí liom! Labhraíodh sí liom speak/3SG/PAST/SBJV she with/me ‘She is to speak with me/let her speak to me!’ The go particle preceding the adjective fuar is unrelated to the go preceding the present subjunctive; in Irish, the go particle is used in front of certain predicatives (its usage is irregular), and in subordinating conjunctions. It also denotes the prepositions “to”, “till” and “until”. See Stenson (2008) for more information on the usage of go. As is evident in these languages, the forms of the third person imperatives overlap with other moods or speech acts, that is the past subjunctive (Irish; Ó Siadhail 1995; Stenson 2008; Ó’Baoill in Rothstein and Thieroff (2010:273-91)) the optative (Finnish; Karlsson 2008 and Turkish; Göksel and Kerslake 2005) or the jussive (Estonian; Erelt 2002; Erelt and Metslang 2004). These forms and subsequent paradigms, demonstrated below in their entirety, may be considered imperatives on virtue of their directive character (however indirect they actually are), and do not fit the definitional framework of the optative. Illustrated below are the forms of the third person imperatives in Finnish, Estonian and Irish. The sample verb here is “to walk”, its equivalent infinitive form being in Finnish kävellä (verbal stem kävele-), kõndima (verbal stem kõndi-) in Estonian and siúil (verbal stem siúl-) in Irish. Words in the tables are italicized where their forms overlap. 26
Table 5.4: Forms of the imperative and active optative in Finnish Mood 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL Passive IMP - kävele kävelköön kävelkäämme kävelkää kävelkööt käveltäköön OPT kävellön kävellös kävelköön kävelköömme kävelköötte kävelkööt käveltäköön 1 1 The passive imperative is based off the third person singular passive optative. Table 5.5: Forms of the imperative and present jussive in Estonian Mood 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL IMPRS 1 IMP - kõnni kõndigu kõndigem kõndige kõndigu kõnnitagu PRES JUSS ma kõndigu sa kõndigu ta kõndigu me kõndigu te kõndigu nad kõndigu kõnnitagu 1 The impersonal is sometimes also referred to as the passive. Table 5.6: Forms of the imperative and active past subjunctive in Irish Mood 1SG 2SG 3SG 1 1PL 2PL 3PL Autonomous 2 IMP siúlaim siúil siúladh sé/sí siúlaimis siúlaigí siúlaidís siúltar 3 PAST/SBJV siúlainn siúltá siúladh sé/sí siúlaimis siúladh siúlaidís siúltaí 1 The third person singular forms in all moods require overt mention of the subject, whether pronoun, noun or proper noun. 2 The passive voice is not recognized as part of Irish grammar, but is expressed through, and subsequently called, the autonomous (i.e. impersonal) form. 3 The autonomous imperative is the same in form as the present subjunctive and present indicative. The situation in Estonian needs some elaboration. As table 5.5 suggests, the forms of the third person singular and plural are identical and as such subject to ambiguity. However, context can contribute to disambiguate this to some degree, and as in Finnish, overt mention of the subject in the third person imperative is not as much a do-not as it is in the other persons (in fact, it is quite common that the subject here is explicitly pointed out). In these cases, the forms of the imperative and jussive not only partially overlap, but are identical, although here there is less room for ambiguity (and if there is no context to disambiguate, the two are functionally similar enough that context might not be needed to begin with; still, some examples to clarify the point would be helpful): 27
Page 1 and 2: UPPSALA UNIVERSITY Bachelor’s The
Page 3 and 4: Abbreviations 1INF First infinite I
Page 5 and 6: 1. Background and purpose The imper
Page 7 and 8: mind passing me the salt”, or a s
Page 9 and 10: There is a depth in using language
Page 11 and 12: optative paradigm (called the jussi
Page 13 and 14: Now, what I found were tendencies i
Page 15 and 16: Irish: Labhraím leis anois. Labhra
Page 17 and 18: Table 3.2: the differences between
Page 19 and 20: So how do non-canonical imperatives
Page 21 and 22: imperative. French is further dissi
Page 23 and 24: 4.2 The hortative functionality of
Page 25 and 26: Irish: Ithim bia! Ithim bia eat/1SG
Page 27 and 28: Table 5.2 Sentence types in Irish D
Page 29: This function arguably is more impe
Page 33 and 34: Finnish: (Hän) kysyköön kysymyks
Page 35 and 36: and requests for permission are not
Page 37 and 38: Russian (courtesy of Hansen in Roth
Page 39 and 40: Resignation and admission of the sp
Page 41 and 42: References Abraham, Werner and Leis

The function of non-canonical imperatives in the languages of Europe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?