Koalib imperatives and semantically related forms

Nicolas Quint

► To cite this version:

Nicolas Quint. Koalib imperatives and semantically related forms. Linguistique et Langues Africaines, 2024, 10 (2), pp.1-38. 10.4000/13lt1. hal-05491552

HAL Id: hal-05491552

https://hal.science/hal-05491552v1

Submitted on 3 Feb 2026

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Koalib imperatives and semantically related forms

Nicolas Quint

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

OpenEdition
Journals

**Electronic version**

URL: https://journals.openedition.org/lla/13837

DOI: 10.4000/13lt1

ISSN: 2822-7468

**Publisher**

Llacan UMR 8135 CNRS/Inalco

**Electronic reference**

Nicolas Quint, "Koalib imperatives and semantically related forms", *Linguistique et langues africaines* [Online], 10(2) | 2024, Online since 31 March 2025, connection on 31 March 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/lla/13837; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/13lt1

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-SA 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are "All rights reserved", unless otherwise stated.
# Koalib imperatives and semantically related forms

Nicolas Quint

CNRS, UMR 8135 Langage, langues et cultures d'Afrique (Llacan)

## ABSTRACT

Koalib is a Kordofanian language traditionally spoken in South Kordofan (Sudan). This paper, based on first-hand data, is the first in-depth study of the morphology of imperatives in this language. Section 1 introduces the language and the structure of the paper. Section 2 provides the reader with basic facts about Koalib grammar in order to enable them to better follow what comes next. Then, Section 3 deals in detail with the main characteristics of standard imperative morphology, including both positive and negative polarity. Section 4 investigates specific types of imperatives: imperatives in (i) reported speech, (ii) attenuated and (iii) intensive imperative paradigms, as well as (iv) imperatives of irregular verbs. Section 5 takes stock of forms semantically related to imperatives, namely jussive constructions and commands addressed to animals. The conclusion emphasizes the particular typological interest of Koalib imperatives.

## KEYWORDS

animal-directed commands, imperative, jussive, Koalib, Kordofanian, reported speech, Sudan, tonology

## RÉSUMÉ

Le koalib est une langue kordofanienne traditionnellement pratiquée au Soudan, dans la province du Sud-Kordofan. Cet article, dont le contenu repose sur des données de première main, constitue la première étude approfondie de la morphologie de l'impératif dans cette langue. La première partie présente la langue koalibe et fait le point sur la structure de l'article. La deuxième partie fournit des notions élémentaires de grammaire koalibe afin de rendre plus accessible la suite de l'exposé. La troisième partie aborde les principales caractéristiques de la morphologie de l'impératif prototypique en koalib, et prend en compte les polarités positive et négative. La quatrième partie traite de différentes catégories d'impératifs : (i) paradigmes utilisés en discours rapporté, (ii) atténuatifs, (iii) intensifs et (iv) verbes irréguliers. La cinquième partie porte sur deux types morphologiques sémantiquement apparentés à l'impératif proprement dit, à savoir les constructions jussives et les ordres adressés à des animaux. La conclusion souligne l'intérêt typologique tout particulier de la flexion impérative en koalib.

## MOTS-CLÉS

discours rapporté, impératif, jussif, koalib, kordofanien, ordres adressés à des animaux, Soudan, tonologie
# 1. INTRODUCTION

Koalib<fnref n="1" /> is a Niger-Congo language (Kordofanian branch, Heibanian family), spoken by around 100,000 people living in or originating from the towns of Abri, Delami, Dere, Tongole, Umm Heitan and Umm Berembeita, and their surroundings, in the Sudanese Province of South Kordofan (Quint 2006: 3; 2009: 1). Koalib verbal morphology has hitherto not been described in any depth. In this paper, I focus on the imperative, detailing the morphological means the language uses to convey this grammatical category. The structure of this paper is as follows: in Section 2, I give some basic facts about Koalib grammar so that the reader can more easily follow what comes next. Then, in Section 3, I give and comment on the full paradigm of the positive and negative imperative, including the various subject-object combinations morphologically encoded by the language. In Section 4, I deal with other parameters that are relevant for the analysis of this category, namely imperatives in reported speech, attenuated, intensive and irregular imperatives. In Section 5, in order to give a broader picture of the domain of COMMAND in Koalib, I deal with jussive constructions, used to express a wish, and I also address non-verbal imperatives, in particular the interjections used to give commands to different animal species. In Section 6, I conclude this article by stressing the typological interest of the Koalib data for a more general understanding of the expression of commands and prohibitions in the world's languages.

# 2. SOME BASIC FACTS ABOUT KOALIB GRAMMAR

All paradigms and examples presented in this paper come from the central variety of Koalib (autonym ንërዕዕ, anglicized as “Rere”), which is the basis of present-day standard written Koalib, and the mother tongue of Siddig Ali Karmal Kokko, my main informant.

## 2.1 Phonology

The vowel system obeys strict harmony rules (Quint 2006: 39–42; 2009: 33–40). The vowels are divided into two sets, a low set, comprising five vowels /e, ɛ, a, o, ɔ/ and a high set, comprising three vowels /i, ɛ, u/. A given word can only contain vowels belonging to one and the same set (i.e., either all vowels are low, or all vowels are high). Due to these harmonic rules, most affixes containing a vowel exist in two forms: low and high. By convention, the vowels of these affixes are therefore represented as archiphonemes, namely *E* (standing mostly for /i, ɛ/), *A* (= /a, ɛ/) and *O* (standing mostly for /u, o/).

The consonant system (Quint 2006: 51–143; 2009: 49–128) is characterized by the absence of any phonological distinction between stops and fricatives, and a significant number of allophones, e.g., /p/ is realized [f] in word-initial position, [v] in intervocalic position and [p] in word-final position.

Koalib has two phonological tones (Quint 2006: 145–165; 2009: 129–148), namely high (H, see (1)), and low (L, see (2)). It also has several contour tones, the most frequent being a falling tone (F, see (3)), which can ultimately be analyzed as a succession of a high and a low tone, i.e., F=HL.

1. lɔ́ny (H) ‘droplet of saliva’<fnref n="2" />

2. lɔ́ny (L) ‘egg’

3. ንào (L) ‘water’

The orthography used throughout this paper is phonologically-based and explained in detail in Quint (2006: 189–210; 2009: 169–187). The tone conventions are provided at the end of the paper. Due to the existence of various allophones for several consonantal phonemes, when deemed necessary, some orthographic forms are followed by phonetic transcriptions in order to better represent the phonetic realization of these forms.

<footnote n="1">1. I would like to dedicate this chapter to my informant and friend Radouan Shanga from Tèmnàŋ, who sadly passed away recently. May this work show the respect I had for him and his knowledge of the Koalib language and traditions.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Most of the audio versions of the Koalib examples can be accessed through the following link: https://cocoon.huma-num.fr/exist/crdo/meta/cocoon-e846920a-f40f-4c69-8692-0af40f0c69c0 (Quint 2025).</footnote>
## 2.2 Noun morphology

Koalib noun morphology displays two salient characteristics: (i) the existence of a noun class system and (ii) a two-case declension.

All nouns are necessarily associated with one or two (singular/plural pairings, see Quint 2022) of the 13 noun classes attested in the language. The noun triggers class agreement on different targets, in particular (i) various dependents of the noun (adjectives, demonstratives, genitive connector, instrumental suffix, lower numerals, and possessives (4)) inside the noun phrase, and (ii) the verb (see Section 2.3). In most nouns, the noun-class marker is also prefixed to the noun itself (4).

(4a) **kw-ór** **kw-ínyí**
CL<sub>kw</sub>-man CL<sub>kw</sub>-POSS1SG
‘my husband (lit. my man)’

(4b) **l-èpèntì** **l-ínyí**
CL<sub>l</sub>-teacher CL<sub>l</sub>-POSS1SG
‘my teacher’

The two-case declension of Koalib constitutes a typological rarity in Niger-Congo: it is only attested in the Heibanian family of Kordofanian. Koalib contrasts a subject and object case. The subject is unmarked (5), whereas the object is marked by means of a suffix and/or a tonal change of the subject stem (6) (Quint & Allassonnière-Tang 2022).

(5) **káaŋàl** η-k-ó **kè-pèetò**
sheep.s DEM-CL<sub>k</sub>-PROX CL<sub>k</sub>-be.white.PFV
‘This sheep is white.’

(6) **Kwókkò** kwè-m-ɛɛcɛ́ **kàaŋálè** η-k-ó
Kwokko CL<sub>kw</sub>-PRF-see.IPFV.CFG sheep.o DEM-CL<sub>k</sub>-PROX
‘Kwokko<fnref n="3" /> has seen this sheep.’

## 2.3 A brief overview of the verbal system

Koalib verbal morphology is a complex, highly synthetic system, which codes principally movement, aspect and person by means of a variety of formal devices, including both affixal and tonal marking as well as vowel harmony. In this subsection, I provide a minimal amount of information about verbal morphology in order to enable the reader to understand the way imperative inflections fit into this system.

### 2.3.1 Indicative vs. conjunctive distinction

Koalib verbs comprise two main types of inflected forms: indicative and conjunctive. Indicative verbs are used in most main clauses as well as several types of subordinate clauses (e.g., relative and utterance complement clauses). Indicative verbs index the noun class of either the subject (7) or the object (8) depending on the argument configuration<fnref n="4" /> of the verb.

(7) **nyí** **kw-èɛlɛ́** **Kálkè**
1SG CL<sub>kw</sub>-move.IPFV.CFG Delami
‘I will go to Delami.’<fnref n="5" />

<footnote n="3">3. Kwókkò is the name of the first born male in a family.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4. The term “configuration” encompasses two main parameters, namely the argument structure (or valency) of the verb and the syntactic type (pronoun or noun phrase) of the subject and object.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5. Delami (South Kordofan, Sudan) is one of the main towns of the Koalib country.</footnote>
In (7), the class marker kw- indexes the subject – human singular – of the sentence.

(8) l-èecà-η-cè
CL₁-see.PFV-s2SG-O3PL
‘You (SG) saw them.’

In (8), the class marker l- indexes the object – human plural – of the sentence.

Conjunctive verbs are used in most adverbial clauses (9) as well as some complement (10) and main clauses (9), in which case they are always introduced by a conjunction (e.g., nè- in (9)). However, conjunctive verbs can usually not be employed in isolated, nuclear main clauses such as (7)-(8) (but see Section 5.1). Furthermore, apart from a few exceptions, conjunctive verbs generally do not combine with class markers.

<table><thead><tr><th>[ADVERBIAL CLAUSE]</th><th colspan="2">MAIN CLAUSE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(9) [Mé-ny-éelé<br>when-s1SG-move.IPFV.CFG</td><td>Kálkè]<br>Delami</td><td>nè-ny-èecé<br>then-s1SG-see.IPFV.CFG</td><td>Kwókkò-ηwò.<fnref n="6" /><br>Kwokko-o</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>CONJUNCTIVE</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">‘When I went to Delami, I saw Kwokko.’</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>MAIN CLAUSE</th><th colspan="2">[COMPLEMENT CLAUSE]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(10) <strong>Nyí</strong><br>s1SG</td><td>kwé-náŋná<br>CLkw-want.PFV</td><td>[èt']<br>CONN</td><td>èelé<br>move.IPFV.CFG</td><td>Kálkè].<br>Delami</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>INDICATIVE</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>CONJUNCTIVE</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">‘I want to go to Delami.’</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 2.3.2 The three basic aspect-motion stems

Nearly all verbs can appear under three different aspect-motion stems: (i) the centrifugal imperfective, (ii) the centripetal imperfective and (iii) the perfective.

The **centrifugal imperfective** (or **itive**) is the basic form of the verb. In particular, it is the only aspect-motion stem to be lexically specified for tone (Quint 2010: 296–297, fn. 2). It implies that the action (11) or the motion (12) expressed by the verb originates from the speaker (Ferlita & Quint 2024).

(11) <strong>Nyí</strong><br>s1SG

kwé-èecé<br>CLkw-see.IPFV.CFG

Kwókkò-ηwò.<br>Kwokko-o

‘I will see Kwokko [from the place where I am speaking].’

(12) <strong>Nyí</strong><br>s1SG

kwé-èelé<br>CLkw-move.IPFV.CFG

Kálkè.<br>Delami

‘I will go to Delami (lit. I will move [from here] towards Delami).’

Throughout this paper, the centrifugal imperfective is used as the citation form of verbs.

The **centripetal imperfective** (or **ventive**) implies that the action (13) or the motion (14) expressed by the verb is oriented towards the speaker (Ferlita & Quint 2024).

<footnote n="6">6. When a dot is used in a Koalib sequence, it expresses that this example is sentence-final, which has consequences for the tonal realization of the last syllables preceding the dot (Quint 2006: 144; 2009: 161). Conversely, when no dot is used at the end of a given Koalib sequence, this means that the tones provided are not sentence-final.</footnote>
(13) *Nyí* kw-èecà Kwókkò-ŋwò.
s1sg CLkw-see.IPFV.CTP Kwokko-o

‘I will see Kwokko [when I am there and as if looking towards the place where I am speaking now].’

(14) *Nyí* kw-èelà kènòŋ.
s1sg CLkw-move.IPFV.CTP here

‘I will come here (lit. I will move [from there] towards here).’

The centripetal imperfective always has an -A ending, which can be considered as a centripetal (or ventive) suffix.

The **perfective** is not sensitive to the direction or origin of an action (15) or a motion (16). It is also used in progressive constructions, frequently in association with a demonstrative-based copula (17).

(15) *Nyí* kw-éecá Kwókkò-ŋwò.
s1sg CLkw-see.PFV Kwokko-o

‘I saw Kwokko [anywhere].’

(16) (...) nòŋw-éecàccé ṭ-òoró ṭ-ìntù
then.s3sg-check.IPFV.CFG CLt-child.o CLt-**move.PFV**
et’ èrrí áatà-ŋw.
CONN do.IPFV.CFG what-o

‘(...) and he checked what his child intended to study (lit. then he checked his child moved (= was going) to do what).’

(17) *Nyí* η-kw-ó kw-èecà<fnref n="7" /> Kwókkò-ŋwò.
s1sg DEM-CLkw-PROX CLkw-see.PFV Kwokko-o

‘I am looking at (lit. seeing) Kwokko.’

In most cases, the perfective is characterized by one of the following two endings: -A (69% of verbs, see (15)) or -O (29% of verbs, see *tìntù* in (16)).

As seen above, nearly all centripetal imperfective and perfective aspect-motion stems are marked by a specific suffix and can ultimately be broken down into a lexical root followed by an aspect-motion marker. However, the vowels of the lexical root interact with these perfective and centripetal markers and these interactions are not always easy to predict (see Table 1). Therefore, for the sake of clarity, I will henceforward consider each aspect-motion stem as a whole, without trying to separate its lexical and affixal components.<fnref n="8" />

In Table 1, I have chosen to display the aspect-motion stems in the following order:

(i) centrifugal imperfective;

(ii) perfective;

(iii) centripetal imperfective.

This order reflects a gradient of increasing morphological regularity, from centrifugal imperfective (lexical tones, many final vowels = maximum irregularity) to centripetal imperfective (no lexical tones, same final vowel = maximum regularity).

<footnote n="7">7. Although this form displays exactly the same segmental and tonal characteristics as the centripetal imperfective *kw-èecà* in (13), it can be shown beyond doubt (e.g., using verbs whose centripetal imperfective and perfective aspect-motion stems are segmentally different from each other) that the progressive construction in (17) contains the perfective aspect-motion stem.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8. Stevenson also distinguishes three basic forms of the verb in Tira (2009: 59–61) and Otoro (2009: 231–236), two other Kordofanian languages belonging to the same family – Heibanian – as Koalib. Stevenson calls these basic forms “aspects” in Tira and “stems” in Otoro. For both languages, these three different “aspects” or “stems” are labelled “definite, indefinite, and dependent” respectively. These three basic forms are also called “verb bases” by Stevenson in 1956 (1956-1957: 29-30).</footnote>
Note also that tone is not indicated for perfective and centripetal imperfective, as these aspect-motion stems are not lexically specified for tone (contrary to centrifugal imperfective, see above). In other words, the tonal profile of both perfective and centripetal imperfective can always be explained by morphological rules.

<table><caption>Table 1 — Aspect-motion stems of selected verbs</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Aspect-motion stem</th></tr><tr><th>Centrifugal imperfective</th><th>Perfective</th><th>Centripetal imperfective</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>àllá</td><td>ellu</td><td>alla</td><td>'remove'</td></tr><tr><td>àpré</td><td>apro</td><td>apra</td><td>'run'</td></tr><tr><td>èené ~ òdoné</td><td>eena ~ oono</td><td>eena ~ oona</td><td>'wash oneself'</td></tr><tr><td>èmné</td><td>emno</td><td>emna</td><td>'eat (soft food)'</td></tr><tr><td>èɛcɛ́</td><td>eeca</td><td>eeca</td><td>'see, look'</td></tr><tr><td>èɛlɛ́</td><td>intu<sup>9</sup></td><td>eela</td><td>'move'</td></tr><tr><td>ɛ́lŋè</td><td>ilŋitu</td><td>elŋeta</td><td>'know'</td></tr><tr><td>èlŋɛ́</td><td>elŋa</td><td>elŋa</td><td>'sing'</td></tr><tr><td>íklì</td><td>iklɛ́</td><td>iklite</td><td>'be green/wet'</td></tr><tr><td>káttò</td><td>kɛttu</td><td>katta</td><td>'throw'</td></tr><tr><td>ònté</td><td>onto</td><td>onta</td><td>'be dry'</td></tr><tr><td>ɔɔpɛ́</td><td>uuputu</td><td>oopeta</td><td>'knock, crash'</td></tr><tr><td>úŋnì</td><td>uŋnɛ́</td><td>uŋnitɛ́</td><td>'be black'</td></tr></tbody></table>

Two other important points must be mentioned regarding aspect-motion stems: first, all three aspect-motion stems are attested both in indicative and conjunctive contexts. Second, from a morpho-syntactic point of view, subject and object indices always precede imperfective stems (both centripetal and centrifugal (18)), whereas they always follow perfective stems (19).

(18) *lè-ny-c-èɛcɛ́*
CL₁-s1SG-O3PL-see.IPV.CFG
'I will see them.'

(19) *l-èecà-ny-cè*
CL₁-see.PFV-s1PL-O3PL
'I saw them.'

### 2.3.3 Derived and basic verbs

Koalib, like many Niger-Congo languages, has a profuse system of verb extensions, each of which is illustrated by one or two typical examples in Table 2. Actually, the derived verbs make up over 80% of all verbal items attested, namely 1 991 derived verbs out of a total of 2 397 verbs in Quint & Ali Karmal Kokko (forthcoming a), i.e., 83%. Some of these extensions are characterized by specific lexical tones (Quint 2010).

<footnote n="9">⁹ It can be shown by internal reconstruction (Quint 2006: 111–112; 2009: 100–102) that *intu* is a regular realization of an underlying form *ilitu* [iliðu], whose syllabic structure and perfective suffix *-itu* exactly parallel the perfective form *ilŋitu* of *ɛ́lŋɛ́* ‘know’. Hence *intu* is not a suppletive stem of *ɛɛlɛ́* ‘move’, but it is built on the same root /V(V)l/-, attested in the three stems *ɛɛlɛ́*, *intu* (< *ilitu*) and *eela*.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2 — Main verb extensions (Quint 2020: 250)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Verb extension</th><th colspan="2">Form of the extension<br>(centrifugal imperfective)</th><th rowspan="2">Example<br>(basic verb > derived verb)</th></tr><tr><th>Segmental</th><th>Tonal<sup>10</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Applicative 1<br>(benefactive)</td><td>-ccE<sup>11</sup></td><td>H(L)<sub>n</sub>H</td><td>àé ‘die’ > éèccí ‘die for s.o.’</td></tr><tr><td>Applicative 2<br>(malefactive)</td><td>-(A)tA</td><td>H(L)<sub>n</sub></td><td>nyiimí ‘steal s.th.’ > nyíimètè ‘steal s.th. from s.o.’</td></tr><tr><td>Associative</td><td>-VtE</td><td>(L)<sub>n</sub>H</td><td>àppé ‘carry’ > àppàté ‘carry together’</td></tr><tr><td>Causative</td><td>-i + HVHS<sup>12</sup></td><td>(L)<sub>n</sub>H</td><td>ájlè ‘be weak’ > èjlí ‘weaken’</td></tr><tr><td>Excessive</td><td>-AttE</td><td>(L)<sub>n</sub>H</td><td>òblè ‘be short’ > òblàtté ‘be too short’</td></tr><tr><td>Immediate</td><td>-(t)AnnE</td><td>(L)<sub>n</sub>H</td><td>ìidí ‘fall’ > ìidènní ‘fall suddenly’;<br>ţùú ‘go out’ > ţùutènní ‘go out at once’</td></tr><tr><td>Locative</td><td>-AcE</td><td>(L)<sub>n</sub>H</td><td>ţùuni ‘bring s.o. up’ > ţùunècí ‘bring s.o. up<br>somewhere’</td></tr><tr><td>Passive</td><td>-(tV)nnE</td><td>(L)<sub>n</sub>H</td><td>ìppí ‘beat (tr.)’ > ìppìnní ‘be beaten’;<br>yèé ‘eat (tr.)’ > yèètènné ‘be eaten’</td></tr><tr><td>Reciprocal</td><td>-AtEcE</td><td>(L)<sub>n</sub>H</td><td>èlryé ‘kill’ > èlryàtècé ‘kill each other’</td></tr><tr><td>Reflexive/<br>middle</td><td>-VnnE/<br>-VtnE</td><td>(L)<sub>n</sub>H</td><td>ìppí ‘beat’ > ìppènní ‘beat oneself’;<br>yèé ‘eat (tr.)’ > ètné ‘eat (intr.)’</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3. STANDARD IMPERATIVE PARADIGM

This section first deals with the positive imperative of intransitive, transitive and motion verbs. It then takes stock of the negative imperative.

#### 3.1 Positive imperative

##### 3.1.1 Intransitive verbs

The complete positive imperative paradigm of the intransitive verb èené<fnref n="13" /> ‘wash oneself’ is shown in Table 3.

<table><caption>Table 3 — Positive imperative paradigm of the intransitive verb èené ‘wash oneself’</caption><thead><tr><th>Speech<br>Participants</th><th>S.SG</th><th>Meaning</th><th>S.PL</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2</td><td>òonò-Ø<br>[òonò]<br>LL</td><td>‘wash yourself!’</td><td>òonò-r<br>[òonòr]<br>LL</td><td>‘wash yourselves!’</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>S.DU</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>S.PL</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>s1 INCL</td><td>nţ-éené<br>[nţéené]<br>HH</td><td>‘let’s (DU) wash<br>ourselves!’</td><td>àr-èené<br>[àrèené]<br>LLH</td><td>‘let’s (PL) wash<br>ourselves!’</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="10">10. n = number of syllables with n ≥ 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11. For the archiphonemic notation of the vowels of affixes, see Section 2.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12. HVHS = High Vowel Harmony Set. The causative extension generally triggers the use of vowels belonging to the high set in the lexical root itself.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13. Actually, the verb èené ‘wash oneself’ is compulsorily followed by the postposition -náanà ‘over’. However, as -náanà is an invariable element that does not influence the morphology of the verb, I have not included it in Table 3.</footnote>
From a morphosyntactic viewpoint, the following observations can be made: first, the Koalib im-
perative stands somewhat outside (or midway between) the indicative vs. conjunctive distinction.
Syntactically, Koalib imperatives are indicatives in that they can be used in nuclear, isolated main
clauses. However, contrary to other indicative verbs, they do not combine with noun class markers.

Second, most Koalib verbs resort to two different aspect-motion stems (see Section 2.3.2) to pro-
duce their imperative:

* perfective for second person imperatives (basic form *òonò*, see cell s2 X s.SG in Table 3 and Table 1¹⁴), followed by person indices, as is the rule with the perfective stem

* centrifugal imperfective for first person inclusive imperatives (basic form *èené*, see cell s1INCL X s.PL in Table 3 and Table 1), preceded by person indices, as is the rule with imperfective stems

Third, four imperative subject indices are attested in Table 3, coding four different subjects:

* zero or Ø (s2SG)

* -r [r] (s2PL)

* nṭ(É) - H⁺ (s1INCL.DU), whose high tone spreads onto the next low syllable(s) situated on the right of the s1INCL.DU index (20)

* àr- (s1INCL.PL)

For the s1INCL.DU form, (20a) details all morphological components at stake (see the segmentation in the first line and the glosses in the third line) as well as their associated tone (in the second line). In (20b), we can see that the high tone H⁺ of the s1INCL.DU index nṭÉ- spreads onto the first syllable of the IPFV.CFG aspect-motion stem èené, which becomes éené. The high-toned vowel É of nṭÉ- is then merged with the high-toned vowel ée of the first syllable of éené, resulting in the HH tonal scheme actually observed for the s1INCL.DU imperative (20c).

(20a) **nṭÉ-èené**
H⁺-LH
s1INCL.DU-wash.oneself.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(20b) > **nṭÉ-éené**
H-HH

(20c) > **nṭ-éené**
HH
‘Let’s (DU) wash ourselves!’

Fourth, although there is an obvious morphological split between second person and first person imperatives (also called “hortatives”; see van der Auwera et al. 2004: 49–52; van der Auwera et al. 2013), I have chosen to consider that all these forms belong to the imperative paradigm, both for semantic and morphological reasons, as outlined in the following.

First, Koalib may distinguish up to three different subject markers for first person non-singular,
namely dual inclusive (21), plural inclusive (22) and exclusive (23).<fnref n="15" />

<footnote n="14">14. As shown in Table 1, the perfective stem *oono* freely alternates with *eena*. The fact that *oono* was selected by my infor-
mant for the imperative paradigm of *èené* is almost certainly due to a lexical, not a morphological, choice.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15. Note that this distinction is not found for object indices (see Section 3.1.2), where there is only one form coding all types
of non-singular first person objects.</footnote>
(21) *kwé-nt-Ø-éecé*
CL<sub>kw</sub>-*s*1INCL.DU-*o*3SG-see.IPFV.CFG

‘We (= you (SG) and me) will see him/her/it.’

(22) *kwè-r-Ø-èecé*
CL<sub>kw</sub>*-s*1INCL.PL-*o*3SG-see.IPFV.CFG

‘We (= you (PL) and me) will see him/her/it.’

(23) *kwé-ny-Ø-èecé*
CL<sub>kw</sub>*-s*1EXCL-*o*3SG-see.IPFV.CFG

‘We (= s/he ~ they and me) will see him/her/it.’

Nevertheless, only two of these possibilities are attested in the imperative paradigm, namely the in-
clusive forms, because they include a second person:

• inclusive dual = ‘you (SG) and me’, i.e., |s1SG + s2SG|

• inclusive plural = ‘you (all) (PL) and me’, i.e., |s1SG + s2PL|

In other words, as Koalib (and other languages that distinguish inclusive from exclusive first person non-singular) shows, a command given to a first person plural is finally a command given to a second person (associated with the speaker). This is why the exclusive imperative does not exist in Koalib: the notion of COMMAND is not compatible with the exclusion of the second person.<fnref n="16" />

Second, from a strictly morphological point of view, a rhotic element *r* [r] appears in the subject indices of both the *stricto sensu* second person plural commands (e.g., *donòr* ‘wash yourselves!’) and the inclusive plural commands, which by definition involve the speaker plus a second person plural entity (e.g., *àr-èené* ‘let’s (PL) wash ourselves!’). This *r* [r] is a striking commonality between the two subject indices. At least in synchrony, this element can reasonably be analyzed as a common plural marker associated with second person plural both in second person plural commands and in plural inclusive commands.

The reasons given above justify my choice to include the following forms in the same columns:

• s2SG (second person singular) commands and INCL.DU (inclusive dual) commands, which both semantically involve a second person singular entity

• s2PL (second person plural) commands and INCL.PL (inclusive plural) commands on the other hand, which both semantically involve a second person plural entity<fnref n="17" />

Furthermore, the fact that second person and first person inclusive imperatives can be combined with the same first negator (*NEG1*) *tté~tt(è)*, which is not attested with any other verbal form (see Section 3.2), is a third argument in favor of considering second person and first person inclusive imperatives as belonging to a common imperative paradigm.

**3.1.2 Transitive verbs**

Transitive verbs of all verbal paradigms, including the imperative, mark both the subject and the object morphologically, which results in a richer set of forms. The complete positive imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èècè ‘see, look’ is shown in Table 4.

<footnote n="16">16. For the general tendency of many of the world's languages to have only inclusive first person non-singular imperatives, see Aikhenvald (2017: 11–12).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17. For imperative-related forms involving a third person, see Section 5.1 on jussive constructions.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 4 — Positive imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’</caption><thead><tr><th>Speech Participants</th><th>S.SG</th><th>Meaning</th><th>S.PL</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.o1SG</td><td>èecá-Ø-nyé<br/>[èezápé]<br/>LHH</td><td>‘look (SG) at me!’</td><td>èecá-r-nyé<br/>[èezáŋŋé]<br/>LHH</td><td>‘look (PL) at me!’</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o1PL</td><td>èecá-Ø-ny-cé<br/>[èezáŋŋé]<br/>LHH</td><td>‘look (SG) at us!’</td><td>èecá-r-ny-cé<br/>[èezáŋŋé]<br/>LHH</td><td>‘look (PL) at us!’</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3SG</td><td>èecà-Ø-Ø<br/>[èezà]<br/>LL</td><td>‘look (SG) at him/<br/>her/it/NP!’</td><td>èecà-r-Ø<br/>[èezàr]<br/>LL</td><td>‘look (PL) at him/<br/>her/it/NP!’</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3PL</td><td>èecà-Ø-Ø-cè<br/>[èezàzè]<br/>LL</td><td>‘look (SG) at<br/>them!’</td><td>èecà-r-Ø-cè<br/>[èezàrzè]<br/>LLB</td><td>‘look (PL) at<br/>them!’</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>S.DU</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>S.PL</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3SG</td><td>nţ-Ø-éecé<br/>[nţéεzé]<br/>HH</td><td>‘let’s (DU) look at<br/>him/her/it/NP!’</td><td>èr<sup>18</sup>-Ø-èecé<br/>[èrèεzé]<br/>LLH</td><td>‘let’s (PL) look at<br/>him/her/it/NP!’</td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3PL</td><td>nţé-Ø-c-éecé<br/>[nţézéézé]<br/>HHH</td><td>‘let’s (DU) look at<br/>them!’</td><td>èr-Ø-c-èecé<br/>[èrţèzé]<br/>LLH</td><td>‘let’s (PL) look at<br/>them!’</td></tr></tbody></table>

As a comparison of Tables 3 and 4 shows, the subject indices are the same for transitive and intransitive verbs. In addition, three object indices are attested on transitive verbs:

i. zero or Ø (O3SG)

ii. -ny(É) (O1SG) + ¹H⁺, i.e., a floating high tone H that combines with the syllable situated on the left of the O1SG index and a high tone H⁺, which spreads onto the low syllable(s) situated on the right of the O1SG index

iii. -c(E) (O.PL)

These three indices encode four different objects, which always follow the subject indices. O3SG and O1SG are encoded by a simple index, as illustrated by the s2PL.O3SG (24) and s2SG.O1SG (25) imperatives respectively.

(24) èecà-r-Ø
look.PFV.IMP-S2PL-O3SG
‘Look (PL) at him/her/it/NP!’

(25a) èecà-Ø-nyÉ
LL-Ø-¹H⁺
look.PFV.IMP-S2SG-O1SG

(25b) > èecá-nyé
LHH
‘Look (SG) at me!’

<footnote n="18">18. In Table 4, the s1INCL.PL person index appears as èr- (instead of àr- in Table 3) because the vowel harmonizes with the /ɛ/ of the verb stem èecé ‘see, look’. This harmonic phenomenon is specific to the s1INCL.PL marker and some few more morphemes, and is independent of the more general harmony rules based on vowel height that are described in Section 2.1.</footnote>
(25a) details all morphological components of the form at stake as well as their associated tone. In (25b), we can see that the floating high tone H of the O1SG index -nyÉ associates with the last syllable of the S2 imperative stem èecà, resulting in the LHH tonal scheme actually observed for this form.

The other two objects, O3PL and O1PL, are composite indices. O3PL is encoded by O3SG + O.PL = zero + -c(E) = -c(E),<fnref n="19" /> as illustrated by the S1INCL.DU.O3PL imperative in (26).

(26a) **nṭÉ-Ø-cE-èɛcɛ́**
H⁺-Ø-NST<fnref n="20" />-LH
S1INCL.DU-O3SG-O.PL-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(26b) > **nṭÉ-cÉ-éɛcɛ́**
H-H-HH

(26c) > **nṭé-c-éɛcɛ́**
HHH
‘Let’s (DU) look at them!’

(26a) details all morphological components of the form at stake as well as their associated tone. In (26b), we can see that the high tone H⁺ of the S1INCL.DU index nṭÉ- spreads onto the O.PL index -cE (which becomes -cÉ) and the first syllable of the IPFV.CFG aspect-motion stem èɛcɛ́, which becomes ɛɛcɛ́. The high-toned vowel É of -cÉ then merges with the high-toned vowel ɛɛ of the first syllable of ɛɛcɛ́, resulting in the HHH tonal scheme actually observed for the S1INCL.DU.O3PL imperative (26c).

O1PL is coded by O1SG + O.PL = -ny(É) + H⁺H⁺ + -c(E) = -nycÉ + H⁺H⁺ (27), as illustrated by the S2PL. O1PL imperative in (27).

(27a) **èecà-r-nyÉ-cE**
LL-Ø-H⁺-NST
look.PFV.IMP-S2PL-O1SG-O.PL

(27b) > **èecár-nyÉ-cÉ**
LH-H-H

(27c) > **èecá-r-ny-cé**
LHH
‘Look (PL) at us!’

(27a) details all morphological components of the form at stake as well as their associated tone. In (27b), we can see that the floating high tone H of the O1SG index -nyÉ associates with the last syllable of the S2 imperative stem èecà, whereas the second high tone H⁺ of the O1SG index -nyÉ spreads onto the O.PL index -cE, which becomes -cÉ. The high-toned vowel É of -nyÉ is then dropped and its high tone merges with the high tone of -cÉ, resulting in the LHH tonal scheme actually observed for the S2PL.O1PL imperative (27c).

<footnote n="19">19. For the sake of simplicity, outside of this Section 3.1.2, when -c(E) codes O3PL, it is glossed as O3PL (and not O3SG.O.PL) in the morphological glosses of the examples of this article.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20. NST = not specified for tone.</footnote>
### 3.1.3 Motion verbs

In the case of motion verbs, all three aspect-motion stems are involved in imperative morphology, as can be seen from the imperative of the intransitive verb èelé 'move' (Table 5).

<table><caption>Table 5 — Positive imperative paradigm of the intransitive motion verb èelé 'move'</caption><thead><tr><th>Speech Participants</th><th>Oriented motion</th><th>S.SG</th><th>Meaning</th><th>S.PL</th><th>Meaning</th><th>Aspect-motion stem</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2</td><td>CFG</td><td>ntù-Ø<br/>[ndù]<br/>L</td><td>'go (= move from here) (SG)!'</td><td>ntì-r<br/>[ndìr]<br/>LL</td><td>'go (PL)!'</td><td>PFV</td></tr><tr><td>s2</td><td>CTP</td><td>èelà-Ø<br/>[èelà]<br/>LL</td><td>'come (= move towards here) (SG)!'</td><td>èelà-r<br/>[èelàr]<br/>LL</td><td>'come (PL)!'</td><td>IPFV.CTP</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><strong>S.DU</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>S.PL</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL</td><td>CFG</td><td>nt-éelé<br/>[nḍéelé]<br/>HH</td><td>'let's (DU) go (= move from here)!'</td><td>èr-èelé<br/>[èrèelé]<br/>LLH</td><td>'let's (PL) go!'</td><td>IPFV.CFG</td></tr></tbody></table>

In sum, motion verbs have second person centripetal imperatives that are not attested for other verbs. Note that the centripetal imperative is not compatible with s1INCL, probably due to semantic restrictions. Indeed, as (i) Koalib s1INCL imperatives necessarily include a s1SG (see above), and as (ii) a centripetal stem is associated with a motion oriented towards the speaker, i.e., s1SG, I cannot give an order to myself (plus a second person) to come to the place where I presently am.

The special treatment of motion verbs in the Koalib imperative paradigm is a clear indication of the importance of oriented motion<fnref n="21" /> in this language.

### 3.2 Negative imperative (prohibitive)

The complete negative imperative paradigm of the transitive<fnref n="22" /> verb èecé 'see, look' is shown in Table 6.<fnref n="23" />

<footnote n="21">21. What I call here “oriented motion” in Koalib can reasonably be considered as a case of associated motion, a notion that is gaining a growing acceptance in typology and in African linguistics (Guillaume & Koch 2021).</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22. As transitive verbs, which include both subject and object indices, have a wider range of forms than intransitive verbs, which only include subject indices, in this and most of the following sections, I will mainly illustrate the different types of imperatives by means of transitive paradigms.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23. The negative imperative forms build on their positive counterparts and the negation does not have any impact on the morphology of the positive base. Hence, with the exception of the negator, I have chosen not to segment the forms in this table. For details about the segmentation, see Table 4. The hyphens found in some forms of Table 6 are orthographic symbols, transcribing two types of phonological realizations: (i) the elision of a final vowel (tt- instead of tte for NEG1) and (ii) the harmonic boundary in the case of s1INCL forms, in which the vowels of the class marker and person indices (to the left of the hyphen) preceding the verbal stem (here èecé ~ èecé) do not necessarily belong to the same harmonic set (see Section 2.1) as the vowels of the verbal stem itself (to the right of the hyphen).</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 6 — Negative imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’</caption><thead><tr><th>Speech Participants</th><th>S.SG</th><th>Meaning</th><th>S.PL</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.o1SG</td><td>tt-êecányé māj<br>[têezáŋé mâc]<br>FHH + F</td><td>‘don’t (SG) look at me!’</td><td>tt-êecárnyé māj<br>[têezáŋé mâc]<br>FHH + F</td><td>‘don’t (PL) look at me!’</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o1PL</td><td>tt-êecánycé māj<br>[têezáŋé mâc]<br>FHH + F</td><td>‘don’t (SG) look at us!’</td><td>tt-êecárnycé māj<br>[têezáŋé mâc]<br>FHH + F</td><td>‘don’t (PL) look at us!’</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3SG</td><td>tt-èecà māj<br>[tèezà mâc]<br>LL + F</td><td>‘don’t (SG) look at him/her/it/NP!’</td><td>tt-êecàr māj<br>[têezàr mâc]<br>FL + F</td><td>‘don’t (PL) look at him/her/it/ NP!’</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3PL</td><td>tt-èecàcè māj<br>[tèezàzè mâc]<br>LL + F</td><td>‘don’t (SG) look at them!’</td><td>tt-êecàrcè māj<br>[têezàrè mâc]<br>FLL + F</td><td>‘don’t (PL) look at them!’</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>S.DU</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>S.PL</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3SG</td><td>tté nţ-éecé māj<br>[ténţéţé mâc]<br>HHH + F</td><td>‘let’s (DU) not look at him/her/it/ NP!’</td><td>tt-èr-èecé māj<br>[tèrèţé mâc]<br>LLH + F</td><td>‘let’s (PL) not look at him/her/it/ NP!’</td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3PL</td><td>tté nţéc-éecé māj<br>[ténţéţéţé mâc]<br>HHHH + F</td><td>‘let’s (DU) not look at them!’</td><td>tt-èrc-èecé māj<br>[tèrţèţé mâc]<br>LLH + F</td><td>‘let’s (PL) not look at them!’</td></tr></tbody></table>

In the imperative paradigm (as in most other verb inflections), Koalib resorts to a double negation strategy, and complies with the following morphological formula (Figure 1).

<caption>Figure 1 — Syntactic formula of negative imperatives</caption>

$$ \text{NEG1} + \text{positive imperative} + \text{NEG2} $$

The first negator (NEG1) is tté~tt(è), obviously related to the habitual marker (à)tté~(à)ttè. The use of this first negator is limited to the imperative. The second negator (NEG2) in the imperative, as well as in most other clauses, is mâj. This element is clause-final, i.e., an NP (28) or other elements can be inserted between the verb and mâj.

<table><tr><td>(28)</td><td>tté</td><td>nţ-Ø-éecé</td><td>Kwókkò-ŋwó</td><td>māj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEG1</td><td>s1INCL.DU-O3SG-look.PFV.CFG.IMP</td><td>Kwókkò-o</td><td>NEG2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">‘Let’s (DU) not look at Kwokko!’</td></tr></table>

From a tonal point of view, the first negator has two different realizations depending on the subject-object combination involved. First, with s2SG.O3 (29) and s1INCL.PL (see shaded cells in Table 6), the first negator tt(è) is low-toned and does not interact with the tone of the positive imperative.

<table><tr><td>(29a)</td><td>ttè</td><td>èecàcè</td><td>māj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEG1</td><td>look.PFV.IMP.S2SG.O3PL</td><td>NEG2</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(29b)</td><td>&gt; tt-èecàcè</td><td>māj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">‘Don’t (SG) look at them!’</td></tr></table>
Second, with the other subject-object combinations, the first negator *tt(é)* is high-toned, and its high tone spreads onto the neighboring syllable, generating the falling tones (F = H+L) observed for the vowel-initial s2.o1 (30) and s2PL.o3 imperatives, whereas the consonant-initial s1INCL.DU forms maintain the original high tone of the positive imperative.

<table><tr><td>(30a)</td><td>tté</td><td>èecárnyé</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H</td><td>LHH</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEG1</td><td>look.PFV.IMP.S2PL.O1SG</td><td>NEG2</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(30b)</td><td>&gt; tt-êecárnyé</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>FHH</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">'Don't (PL) look at me!'</td></tr></table>

I cannot account for this differential tone behavior of the first negator. However, this tonal particularity is a strong argument in favor of a link between the first imperative negator and the habitual marker, as the habitual marker displays either a low or high tone for exactly the same subject-object combinations as the negative imperative (31)-(32).<fnref n="24" /> In (31), *ttè* has a low tone just like in the corresponding subject-object combination of the negative imperative (see cell s2.O3PL X s.SG in Table 6). In (32), *tté* has a high tone just like in the corresponding subject-object combination of the negative imperative (see cell s2.O3SG X s.PL in Table 6).

<table><tr><td>(31)</td><td>lè-ttè-Ø-c-èecé</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>CLL-HAB-S2SG-O3PL-SEE.IPFV.CFG</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>'You (SG) usually see them.' [s2SG.O3PL]</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(32a)</td><td>kwè-tt(é)-Ø-Ø-èecé</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>CL<sub>kw</sub>-HAB-S2PL-O3SG-see.IPFV.CFG</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(32b)</td><td>&gt; kwètt-êecé</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>'You (PL) usually see him/her/it/NP.' [s2PL.O3SG]</td></tr></table>

Apart from the forms given in Table 6, another possible formation is attested for s1INCL negative imperatives, as shown in Table 7.<fnref n="25" />

<table><caption>Table 7 — Alternative s1INCL negative imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’</caption><thead><tr><th>Speech Participants</th><th>S.DU</th><th>Meaning</th><th>S.PL</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s1INCL. O3SG</td><td>nţ-Ø-éerè t'èecé<br>mâj [nţéerè ðèezé mâc]</td><td>'let's (DU) not look at him/her/it/ NP!'</td><td>èr-Ø-éerè t'èecé<br>mâj [èrérè ðèezé mâc]</td><td>'let's (PL) not look at him/her/it/ NP!'</td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL. O3PL</td><td>nţé-c-éerè t'èecé<br>mâj [nţézéerè ðèezé mâc]</td><td>'let's (DU) not look at them!'</td><td>èr-c-éerè t'èecé<br>mâj [èrţéerè ðèezé mâc]</td><td>'let's (PL) not look at them!'</td></tr></tbody></table>

This second s1INCL negative imperative is an auxiliary construction, based on the verb éerè ‘be missing, finish’, which is also used as a first negator in non-imperative, subordinate clauses. This negative imperative auxiliary construction complies with the following morphological formula (Figure 2).

<footnote n="24">24. Note that the link between negative imperative and habitual morphology seems to be typologically quite uncommon in the world's languages. In the section devoted to the sources of negative imperatives (“prohibitives”), Aikhenvald (2010: 351–362) does not mention this or any similar evolutionary path.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25. As the forms of the auxiliary variant of the negative imperative differ significantly from the positive corresponding paradigms, I have segmented the morphological components in Table 7.</footnote>
<caption>Figure 2 — Syntactic formula of s1INCL negative imperatives whose NEG1 is the auxiliary éèrè</caption>

$$S-O-NEG1(=AUX) + CONN + main.verb.IPFV.CFG + NEG2$$

The s1INCL.DU.O3PL combination is glossed in (33) to illustrate this formula.

<table><tr><td>(33)</td><td>nţé-c-éèrè</td><td>t'</td><td>èècé</td><td><b>mâj</b></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>s1INCL.DU-O3PL-AUX(=NEG1).</td><td>CONN</td><td>look.IPFV.CFG</td><td>NEG2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">'Let's (DU) not look at them!'</td></tr></table>

# 4. OTHER TYPES OF IMPERATIVES

## 4.1 Reported speech

Koalib marks reported speech on most verb forms, by means of a -Ê morpheme, which, in many cases, only surfaces as tonal changes of the verb. Koalib imperatives, when used in utterance complement clauses (Cristofaro 2003: 108–109) and introduced, for example, by nòŋw-àaré: (...) ‘and s/he said: (...)’, are regularly marked as reported imperatives. The forms of positive and negative reported imperatives are given in Tables 8-10.<fnref n="26" />

<table><caption>Table 8 — Reported positive imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èècé ‘see, look’, compared to the non-reported imperative</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Speech Participants</th><th colspan="2">S.SG</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><th>Non-reported</th><th>Reported</th><th>Non-reported</th><th>Reported</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.O1SG</td><td>èecányé</td><td>èecányê</td><td>èecárnyé</td><td>èecárnyê</td></tr><tr><td>s2.O1PL</td><td>èecánycé</td><td>èecánycê</td><td>èecárnycé</td><td>èecárnycê</td></tr><tr><td>s2.O3SG</td><td>èecà</td><td>èecâ</td><td>èecàr</td><td>èecàrê</td></tr><tr><td>s2.O3PL</td><td>èecàcè</td><td>èecàcê</td><td>èecàrcè</td><td>èecàrcê</td></tr><tr><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">S.DU</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3SG</td><td>nţ-éècé</td><td>nţ-êècé</td><td>èr-èècé</td><td>èr-êècé</td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3PL</td><td>nţéc-éècé</td><td>nţéc-èècé</td><td>èrc-èècé</td><td>èrc-êècé</td></tr></tbody></table>

The formation of reported positive imperatives follows relatively clear rules. As can be easily verified in Table 8, the reported speech morpheme (REP) -Ê regularly follows the person indices. For second person (s2) imperatives, which are based on the perfective stem of the verb, -Ê is suffixed to the non-reported imperative, as person indices always follow the perfective stem (see Section 2.3.2). For first person (s1INCL) imperatives, which are based on an imperfective stem, -Ê is inserted between the person indices and the verb stem, as person indices always precede imperfective stems (see Section 2.3.2).

Tonally, the reported speech morpheme -Ê (REP) interacts in two main ways with its environment.

Context A: When -Ê is preceded by a low-toned syllable (s2.O3 and s1INCL.PL imperatives), the falling tone F of -Ê is maintained and three cases can be distinguished.

Case 1: When -Ê is preceded by a vowel (s2.O3 imperatives other than s2PL.O3SG), -Ê merges with this vowel, which acquires a falling tone, as illustrated by the s2SG.O3PL imperative in (34).

<footnote n="26">26. The use of hyphens in Table 8 is orthographically based and follows the rules given in footnote 23 for Table 6. The same orthographic conventions are followed in the remaining tables of this paper.</footnote>
(34a) èecà-Ø-cE-Ê
LL-Ø-NST-F
look.PFV.IMP-S2SG-O3PL-REP

(34b) èecà-cÈ-Ê
LL-L-F

(34c) > èecàcê
LLF
‘(and s/he said:) Look (SG) at them!’

Case 2: When -Ê is preceded by a word-final consonant (S2PL.O3SG imperative), it is directly suffixed to this consonant, as illustrated in (35).

(35a) èecà-r-Ø-Ê
look.PFV.IMP-S2PL-O3SG-REP

(35b) > èecàrê
‘(and s/he said:) Look (PL) at him/her/it/NP!’

Case 3: When -Ê is preceded by a word-medial consonant (S1INCL.PL imperatives), the falling tone of -Ê associates with the following syllable, as illustrated by the S1INCL.PL.O3PL imperative in (36).

(36a) èr-Ø-cE-Ê-èecé
L-Ø-NST-F-LH
s1INCL.PL-O3SG-O.PL-REP-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(36b) èr-cÈ-Ê-èecé
L-L-F-LH

(36c) èrc-êecé
L-FH
‘(and s/he said:) Let’s (PL) look at them!’

Context B: When -Ê is preceded by a high-toned syllable (S2.O1 and S1INCL.DU imperatives), the falling tone of -Ê is replaced by a low tone, i.e., È. The appearance of this low tone can be explained by a phonological rule whereby falling tones tend to be “squashed” (realized as low tones) when preceded by a high tone (Quint 2006: 146–147; 2009: 130–131). Then two cases can be distinguished.

Case 1: When -Ê is preceded by a vowel (S2.O1 and S1INCL.DU.O3SG imperatives), once it is lowered to -È by the high tone (H) of the preceding vowel, it associates with H to produce a falling tone, as illustrated by the S2SG.O1SG and S1INCL.DU.O3SG imperatives in (37) and (38), respectively.

(37a) èecà-Ø-nyÉ-Ê
LL-HH+-F
look.PFV.IMP-S2SG-O1SG-REP

(37b) > èecányé-È
LH-H+||-L

(37c) > èecányê
LHF
‘(and s/he said:) Look (SG) at me!’
(37a) details all morphological components of the form at stake as well as their associated tone. In (37b), we can see that the falling tone of the reported speech morpheme -Ê is squashed by the high tone H+ of the preceding o1sg index -nyÊ and replaced by a low tone (-È).<fnref n="27" /> This low tone blocks (||) the spread of the high tone H of the o1sg index. The low-toned reported speech morpheme -È is then merged with the high-toned vowel é of the o1sg index, resulting in the LHF (with F = H+L) tonal scheme actually observed for the reported s2sg.o1sg imperative (37c).

(38a) nṭÉ-Ø-Ê-èɛcɛ́
H⁺-Ø-F-LH
sl1INCL.DU-O3SG-REP-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(38b) > nṭÉ-È-èɛcɛ́
H⁺-||L-LH

(38c) > nṭ-êɛcɛ́
FH
'(and s/he said:) Let's (DU) look at him/her/it/NP!'}

(38a) details all morphological components of the form at stake as well as their associated tone. In (38b), we can see that the falling tone of the reported speech morpheme -Ê is squashed by the high tone H+ of the sl1INCL.DU index nṭÉ- and replaced by a low tone (-È). This low tone blocks (||) the spread of the high tone H of the sl1INCL.DU index, and the lexical tone LH of the IPFV.CFG aspect-motion stem èɛcɛ́ is retained. The low-toned reported speech morpheme -È is then merged with the low-toned vowel èɛ of the first syllable of èɛcɛ́, resulting in the FH (with F = H+L) tonal scheme actually observed for the reported sl1INCL.DU.O3SG imperative (38c).

Case 2: When -Ê is preceded by a consonant (sl1INCL.DU.O3PL imperative), once it is lowered to -È by the high tone (H) of the preceding syllable, it remains low (39).

(39a) nṭÉ-Ø-cE-Ê-èɛcɛ́
H⁺-Ø-NST-F-LH
sl1INCL.DU-O3SG-O.PL-REP-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(39b) > nṭÉ-c-È-èɛcɛ́
H⁺-||L-LH

(39c) > nṭɛ́c-èɛcɛ́
H-LH
'(and s/he said:) Let's (DU) look at them!'

(39a) details all morphological components of the form at stake as well as their associated tone. In (39b), we can see how the falling tone of the reported speech morpheme -Ê is squashed by the high tone H+ of the sl1INCL.DU index nṭÉ- and replaced by a low tone (-È). This low tone blocks (||) the spread of the high tone H of the sl1INCL.DU index, and the lexical tone LH of the IPFV.CFG aspect-motion stem èɛcɛ́ is retained. The low-toned reported speech morpheme -È is then merged with the low-toned vowel èɛ of the first syllable of èɛcɛ́, resulting in the HLH tonal scheme actually observed for the reported sl1INCL.DU.O3PL imperative (39c).

<footnote n="27">27. For the details of the tonal scheme of the non-reported s2sg.o1sg imperative, see (25).</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 9 — Reported negative imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’, compared with non-reported negative imperative</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">S.SG</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><th>Speech Participants</th><th>Non-reported</th><th>Reported</th><th>Non-reported</th><th>Reported</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.o1SG</td><td>tt-êecányé māj</td><td>tt-êecányè māj</td><td>tt-êecárnyé māj</td><td>tt-êecárnyè māj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o1PL</td><td>tt-êecánycé māj</td><td>tt-êecánycè māj</td><td>tt-êecárnycé māj</td><td>tt-êecárnycè māj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3SG</td><td>tt-èecà māj</td><td>tt-êecâ māj</td><td>tt-êecàr māj</td><td>tt-êecàrê māj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3PL</td><td>tt-èecàcè māj</td><td>tt-êecàcê māj</td><td>tt-êecàrcè māj</td><td>tt-êecàrcê māj</td></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">S.DU</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3SG</td><td>tté nţ-êecé māj</td><td>tté nţ-êecé māj</td><td>tt-èr-êecé māj</td><td>tt-èr-êecé māj</td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3PL</td><td>tté nţéc-êecé māj</td><td>tté nţéc-êecé māj</td><td>tt-èrc-êecé māj</td><td>tt-èrc-êecé māj</td></tr></tbody></table>

Morphologically, the reported negative imperative can be characterized as follows.

For s2SG.O3, the reported speech is marked twice, by a first and a second falling tone. The first falling tone (from an underlying reported speech morpheme Ê) follows the first negator tt(è). This marking of the first negator for reported speech could be due to a verbal origin of tt(è), which might be traced back to an old grammaticalized auxiliary (reminiscent of éerè, see Section 3.2), whose verbal status is still perceptible in present-day Koalib. The second falling tone (from another Ê morpheme) is suffixed to the inflected verb in exactly the same way as for the positive reported imperative (see Table 8).

The double reported speech marking of s2SG.O3 negative imperatives is illustrated by the s2SG.O3PL imperative in (40).

<table><tr><td>(40a)</td><td>ttè-Ê</td><td>èecàcè-Ê</td><td>māj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>L-F</td><td>LLL-F</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEG1-REP</td><td>look.PFV.IMP.S2SG.O3PL-REP</td><td>NEG2</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(40b)</td><td>&gt; tt-êecàcê</td><td>māj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>FLF</td><td>F</td></tr></table>

‘(and s/he said:) Don’t (SG) look at them!’

It is quite probable, although synchronically unprovable with the available data, that the s2PL.O3 negative imperatives are also marked twice for reported speech, as illustrated by the s2PL.O3SG imperative in (41).

<table><tr><td>(41a)</td><td>tté-*Ê</td><td>èecàr-Ê</td><td>māj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H-F</td><td>LL-F</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEG1-REP</td><td>look.PFV.IMP.S2PL.O3PL-REP</td><td>NEG2</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(41b)</td><td>&gt; tté-*È</td><td>èecàrê</td><td>māj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H-L</td><td>LLF</td><td>F</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(41c)</td><td>&gt; tt-êecàrê</td><td>māj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>FLF</td><td>F</td></tr></table>

‘(and s/he said:) Don’t (PL) look at him/her/it/NP!’

The first falling contour tone of tt-êecàrê (41c) might come from a squashed reported speech morpheme -Ê, which would have been lowered to -È by the preceding high tone of NEG1 tté. However, the same contour tone is observed in the non-reported speech form (see Table 9) and the presence of an
underlying -Ê after NEG1 tté can therefore not be proven, although the fact that this morpheme does exist in s2SG.O3 reported speech negative imperatives renders the hypothesis plausible.

For s2.O1 imperatives, the contrast between non-reported and reported speech forms is more difficult to explain. The initial modulation, which also exists in non-reported speech, could result from a squashed underlying reported speech morpheme, as hypothesized for s2PL.O3 imperatives (see (41) and the discussion thereof). But, if we consider that negative imperatives seem to be directly derived from their positive counterparts (see Section 3.2), it is quite surprising to observe a final low tone on negative forms, contrasting with a final falling tone on positive forms (42). At present, I cannot satisfactorily account for these differences between positive and negative reported imperatives.

(42a) èecárnyê

‘(and s/he said:) Look (PL) at me!’ (positive)

(42b) tt-êecárnyè

NEG1-look.PFV.IMP.S2PL.O1SG.REP

mâj

NEG2

‘(and s/he said:) Don’t (PL) look at me!’ (negative)

All S1INCL forms have in common that they are marked only once by the reported speech morpheme -Ê, which, as happens with positive reported imperatives (see Table 8), is placed between the person indices and the verb stem. The negative forms of S1INCL imperatives are directly derived from their positive counterparts, in conformity with Figure 1 (see Section 3.2). The only exception is the S1PL. O3SG imperative, where there is a tonal contrast between the positive and negative reported forms (43).

(43a) nţ-êecé

FH

‘(and s/he said:) Let’s (DU) look at him/her/it/NP!’ (positive)

(43b) tté nţ-êecé

H

LH

mâj

F

NEG1

S1INCL.DU.O3SG.REP-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

NEG2

‘(and s/he said:) Let’s (DU) not look at him/her/it/NP!’ (negative)

Two explanations may account for this contrast.

Syllabic explanation: with an extra syllable (=NEG1 tté) for the negative form, the falling F contour tone of the positive reported imperative is split into two (F > H+L) and the high tone H associates (and merges) with the preceding high tone of tté, resulting in a HLH tonal scheme of the NEG1+verb complex, which mirrors the HHLH tonal scheme of the S1INCL.DU.O3PL reported negative imperative.

Tonal explanation: as has been seen previously in various examples (37)-(39), the high tone of the first negator tté (43b) may have squashed the falling tone êê of the positive reported S1INCL.DU.O3SG imperative nţ-êecé (43a).

Reported forms are also attested for the auxiliary negative construction of the S1INCL imperatives (compare Table 7 and Table 10).

<table><caption>Table 10 — Reported negative imperative paradigm of the S1INCL auxiliary construction of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Speech Participants</th><th colspan="2">S.DU</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><th>Non-reported</th><th>Reported</th><th>Non-reported</th><th>Reported</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>S1INCL.O3SG</td><td>nţ-éérè t'èecé mâj<br>nţéc-éérè t'èecé<br>mâj</td><td>nţ-êérè t'èecé mâj<br>nţéc-ěérè t'èecé<br>mâj</td><td>èr-éérè t'èecé mâj<br>èrc-éérè t'èecé<br>mâj</td><td>èr-êérè t'èecé mâj<br>èrc-êérè t'èecé<br>mâj</td></tr><tr><td>S1INCL.O3PL</td><td>nţ-éérè t'èecé mâj<br>nţéc-éérè t'èecé<br>mâj</td><td>nţ-êérè t'èecé mâj<br>nţéc-ěérè t'èecé<br>mâj</td><td>èr-éérè t'èecé mâj<br>èrc-éérè t'èecé<br>mâj</td><td>èr-êérè t'èecé mâj<br>èrc-êérè t'èecé<br>mâj</td></tr></tbody></table>
In these forms, the reported speech marker is inserted between the pronominal indices and the verb stem of the auxiliary *éerè* (see Table 7 in Section 3.2).

For s1INCL.DU.O3SG, the falling tone of the reported speech marker -Ê is squashed by the H⁺ tone of the subject index (44b), and a sequence H (subject index) + L (from the squashed reported speech marker -È) precedes the H lexical tone of the auxiliary *éerè*, resulting in the complex contour tone H LH (~) observed on the first vowel *ɛɛ* of the auxiliary *ɛɛrè* (44c).

<table><tr><td>(44a)</td><td>nţÉ-Ø-Ê-éerè</td><td>t'</td><td>èɛcɛ́</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H⁺-Ø-F-HL</td><td></td><td>LH</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>s1INCL.DU-O3SG-REP-AUX.IPFV.CFG</td><td>CONN</td><td>look.IPFV.CFG</td><td>NEG2</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(44b)</td><td>&gt; nţÉ-È-éerè</td><td>t'</td><td>èɛcɛ́</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H-L-HL</td><td></td><td>LH</td><td>F</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(44c)</td><td>&gt; nţ-ɛɛrè</td><td>t'</td><td>èɛcɛ́</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H-LHL</td><td></td><td>LH</td><td>F</td></tr></table>

‘(and s/he said:) Let’s (PL) not look at him/her/it/NP!’

For s1INCL.DU.O3PL, the tone process is similar to s1INCL.DU.O3SG, but for the fact that the high tone H of the sequence HLH (45b) associates (and merges) with the preceding high tone of the s1INCL.DU person index nţÉ- (compare with (43) for a similar tonal behaviour), hence the rising contour tone R (=LH) observed on the first vowel *ɛɛ* of the auxiliary *ɛɛrè* (45c).

<table><tr><td>(45a)</td><td>nţÉ-cE-Ê-éerè</td><td>t'</td><td>èɛcɛ́</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H⁺-NST-F-HL</td><td></td><td>LH</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>s1INCL.DU-O3PL-REP-AUX.IPFV.CFG</td><td>CONN</td><td>look.IPFV.CFG</td><td>NEG2</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(45b)</td><td>&gt; nţÉ-cÉ-È-éerè</td><td>t'</td><td>èɛcɛ́</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H-H-L-HL</td><td></td><td>LH</td><td>F</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(45c)</td><td>&gt; nţé-cšɛrè</td><td>t'</td><td>èɛcɛ́</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H-R-L</td><td></td><td>LH</td><td>F</td></tr></table>

‘(and s/he said:) Let’s (DU) not look at them!’

For s1INCL.PL, as illustrated by the s1INCL.PL.O3SG imperative in (46), the falling tone (F = H+L) of the reported speech morpheme surfaces before the H lexical tone of the auxiliary *éerè* (46a), resulting in the complex contour tone H LH (~) (= F+H) observed on the first vowel *ɛɛ* of the auxiliary *ɛɛrè* (46b).

<table><tr><td>(46a)</td><td>àr-Ø-Ê-éerè</td><td>t'</td><td>èɛcɛ́</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>L-Ø-F-HL</td><td></td><td>LH</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>s1INCL.PL.O3SG-REP-AUX.IPFV.CFG</td><td>CONN</td><td>look.IPFV.CFG</td><td>NEG2</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(46b)</td><td>&gt; èr-ɛɛrè</td><td>t'</td><td>èɛcɛ́</td><td>mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>L-HLHL</td><td></td><td>LH</td><td>F</td></tr></table>

‘(and s/he said:) Let’s (PL) not look at him/her/it/NP!’

## 4.2 Attenuated imperative

Koalib uses a -ttÊ suffix to attenuate the force of a command (47).
(47a) àapà
bring.PFV.IMP.S2SG.O3SG
'Bring water!' (plain imperative)

η
water.o

(47b) àapà-**ttê**
bring.PFV.IMP.S2SG.O3SG-**ATT**

ηら
water.o

'Please bring water!, Would you be so kind as to bring water?' (attenuated imperative)

Table 11 provides the paradigm of the attenuated positive imperative.<fnref n="28" />

<table><caption>Table 11 — Attenuated positive imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èɛcɛ́ ‘see, look’, compared with the plain imperative</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Speech Participants</th><th colspan="2">S.SG</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><th>Plain</th><th>Attenuated</th><th>Plain</th><th>Attenuated</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.o1SG</td><td>èecányé</td><td>èecányttè</td><td>èecárnyé</td><td>èecárnyétè<sup>29</sup></td></tr><tr><td>s2.o1PL</td><td>èecánycé</td><td>èecánycéttè</td><td>èecárnycé</td><td>èecárnycéttè</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3SG</td><td>èecà</td><td>èecàttê</td><td>èecàr</td><td>èecàrttê</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3PL</td><td>èecàcè</td><td>èecàc(è)ttê</td><td>èecàrcè</td><td>èecàrcèttê</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th colspan="2" style="text-align:center;">S.DU</th><th colspan="2" style="text-align:center;">S.PL</th></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3SG</td><td>nţ-éɛcɛ́</td><td>nţétt-èɛcɛ́</td><td>èr-èɛcɛ́</td><td>àrţt-êɛcɛ́<sup>30</sup></td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3PL</td><td>nţéc-éɛcɛ́</td><td>nţéc(é)tt-êɛcɛ́</td><td>èrc-èɛcɛ́</td><td>àrcètt-êɛcɛ́</td></tr></tbody></table>

As the attenuative marker begins with a consonant, one can clearly see that it is always inserted after the subject and object indices.

Regarding tone, for s2.o3 and s1INCL.PL imperatives, the falling tone of the attenuative marker /ttÊ/ is easily recognizable in the forms provided in Table 11. However, for s2.o1 and s1INCL.DU imperatives, the falling tone F (= H+L) of -ttÊ is squashed by the high tone of the preceding syllable of the verb and replaced by a low tone (-ttÈ). This phenomenon explains the attested forms, as illustrated by the s2PL.O1SG (48) and s1INCL.DU.O3PL (49) imperatives.

(48a) èecárnyé-**ttÊ**
LHH-F
look.PFV.IMP.S2PL.O1SG-**ATT**

(48b) > èecárnyéttè
LHHL
'Please look (PL) at me!'

<footnote n="28">28. The s1INCL auxiliary constructions (see Tables 7 and 10) are not documented in their attenuated forms.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29. In Table 11, I have highlighted in bold the extra-segments of the attenuative morphology as well as the vowels whose associated tone has been modified by the attenuative marker. The same graphic convention applies for the following tables.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">30. In Table 11, there is a difference regarding the vowel of the s1INCL.PL index (plain èr- vs. attenuated àr-). This difference is due to harmonic rules: the attenuative suffix prevents the harmonization of the s1INCL.PL person index with the /ɛ/ of the verb stem èɛcɛ́ ‘see, look’, which is observed in the plain form (see footnote 18 under Table 4).</footnote>
(49a) nţÉ-cE-**ttÊ**-èecé
H⁺-NST-F-LH
s1INCL.DU-O3PL-**ATT**-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(49a) > nţÉ-cÉ-**ttÈ**-èecé
H-H-L-LH

(49b) > nţéc(é)**tt**-èecé
H(H)LH
‘Please let’s (DU) look at them!’

An attenuated imperative can also be inflected for reported speech (49).

(50a) èelàttê
LLF
move.IPFV.CTP.IMP.ATT.S2SG
‘Please come!’ (attenuated non-reported imperative)

(50b) èeláttè
LHL
move.IPFV.CTP.IMP.REP.ATT.S2SG
‘(and s/he said:) Please come!’ (attenuated reported imperative)

Table 12 provides the paradigm of the reported attenuated positive imperative.

<table><caption>Table 12 — Reported attenuated positive imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’, compared with the non-reported attenuated imperative</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Speech Participants</th><th colspan="2">S.SG</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><th>Non-reported attenuated</th><th>Reported attenuated</th><th>Non-reported attenuated</th><th>Reported attenuated</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.O1SG</td><td colspan="2">èecányttè</td><td colspan="2">èecárnyéttè</td></tr><tr><td>s2.O1PL</td><td colspan="2">èecánycéttè</td><td colspan="2">èecárnycéttè</td></tr><tr><td>s2.O3SG</td><td>èecàttê</td><td>èecáttè</td><td>èecàrttê</td><td>èecàrêttê</td></tr><tr><td>s2.O3PL</td><td>èecàc(è)ttê</td><td>èecàcêttê</td><td>èecàrcèttê</td><td>èecàrcêttê</td></tr><tr><th colspan="5" style="text-align: center;">S.DU</th></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3SG</td><td colspan="2">nţétt-èecé</td><td colspan="2">àrtt-êecé</td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3PL</td><td colspan="2">nţéc(é)tt-èecé</td><td colspan="2">àrcètt-êecé</td></tr></tbody></table>

Distinct forms of reported attenuative positive forms are only observed for s2.o3 imperatives. These allow one to understand that the reported speech morpheme -Ê is placed between the person indices and the attenuative marker, as illustrated by the s2PL.O3PL imperative in (51)<fnref n="31" />.

(51a) èecàrcè-Ê-**ttÊ**
LLL-F-F
look.PFV.IMP.S2PL.O3PL-**REP**-ATT

(51b) > èecàrcêttê
LLFF
‘(and s/he said:) Please look (PL) at them!’

<footnote n="31">31. For the case of the s2SG.O3SG reported attenuated imperative, see (55).</footnote>
The absence of distinction between reported and plain attenuated imperatives can be explained in different ways, depending on the encoded persons.

For s2.o1 and s1INCL.DU imperatives, the absence of a distinct form for the reported attenuative can probably be accounted for by the following processes: If we consider that the reported speech morpheme -Ê is inserted at the same place as for s2.o3 imperatives, i.e., between the person indices and the attenuative suffix, the tone of the syllable preceding the inserted -Ê is high. Therefore, -Ê is squashed and replaced by a low tone syllable -È, which then merges with the attenuative suffix -ttÈ, which has itself been squashed by the same preceding high tone, see (48)-(49). This case is illustrated by the s2PL.O1SG imperative in (52).

(52a) èecárnyé-Ê-ttÊ
LHH-F-F
look.PFV.IMP.S2PL.O1SG-REP-ATT

(52b) > èecárnyé-È-ttÈ
LHHLL

(52c) > èecárnyéttè
LHHL
'(and s/he said:) Please look (PL) at me!'

This line of explanation requires the existence of the following tone rule: a high tone can squash a succession of two consecutive falling tones.

For s1INCL.PL imperatives, the absence of a distinct form for the reported attenuative may be due to the fact that, in s1INCL imperatives, (a) the reported speech marker -Ê attaches to the right of the attenuative marker -ttÊ and that (b), at least in this context, a succession of two falling tones (F+F) associated with one and the same syllable can be simplified into one falling tone, i.e., F+F > F. This case is illustrated by the s1INCL.PL.O3PL imperative in (53).

(53a) àr-cE-ttÊ-È-Ècćé
L-NST-F-F-LH
s1INCL.PL-O3PL-ATT-REP-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(53b) > àrcètt-èècćé
LL-FH
'(and s/he said:) Please let's (PL) look at them!'

The hypothesis that the reported speech marker -Ê is inserted after the attenuative marker -ttÊ is supported by the fact that, if the order was the reverse (-Ê + -ttÊ), one would expect the resulting s1INCL.O3PL reported attenuated imperative to have the form in (54), i.e., with two consecutives falling tones F-F, as it would have the same tonal characteristics as the s2PL.O3PL form described in (51).

(54a) \*àr-cE-Ê-ttÊ-èècćé
L-NST-F-F-LH
s1INCL.PL-O3PL-REP-ATT-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(54b) > \*àrcêtt-êècćé
LF-FH
'(and s/he said:) Please let's (PL) look at them!'

One form still remains to be explained, namely the s2SG.O3SG reported attenuated imperative, whose tonal scheme differs not only from its plain counterpart but also from the other s2.o3 reported attenuated imperatives. In this case, one can posit that (a) the absence of a final consonant or of the -cE
(O.PL) marker prevents the reported speech marker -Ê from independently expressing its tone (as happens with the other s2.o3 reported attenuated imperatives), and that (b) the actual tonal scheme observed is due to the same (or a close variant of the) rule described above for (53), whereby a succession of two falling tones can be simplified into one falling tone, i.e., F+F > F. This rule would apply even if the two falling tones are separated by one consonant, here tt.<fnref n="32" /> The resulting falling melody F is then split into its two basic constituents (F = H+L) between the last two syllables of the imperative form (55).

(55a) èecà-Ê-ttê
LL-F-F
look.PFV.IMP.S2SG.O3SG-REP-ATT

(55b) > èecâ-ttê
LFF

(55c) > èecá-ttè
LHL
'(and s/he said:) Please look (SG) at him/her/it/NP! '

Table 13 provides the paradigm of the attenuated negative imperative in non-reported speech, whereas Table 14 provides the paradigm of its reported attenuated negative imperative counterparts.

<table><caption>Table 13 — Attenuated negative imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’, compared with the corresponding plain negative imperative</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Speech Participants</th><th colspan="2">S.SG</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><th>Plain</th><th>Attenuated</th><th>Plain</th><th>Attenuated</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.o1SG</td><td>tt-êecányé mâj</td><td>tt-êecányttè mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnyé mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnyéttè mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o1PL</td><td>tt-êecánycé mâj</td><td>tt-êecánycéttè mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnycé mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnycéttè mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3SG</td><td>tt-èecà mâj</td><td>tt-èecàttê mâj</td><td>tt-èecàr mâj</td><td>tt-èecàrttê mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3PL</td><td>tt-èecàcè mâj</td><td>tt-èecàc(è)ttê mâj</td><td>tt-èecàrcè mâj</td><td>tt-èecàrcèttê mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><th colspan="2">S.DU</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3SG</td><td>tté nţ-éecé mâj</td><td>tté nţéttt-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èr-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èréttt-èecé mâj<sup>33</sup></td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3PL</td><td>tté nţéc-éecé mâj</td><td>tté nţécétt-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èrc-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èrcéttt-èecé mâj</td></tr></tbody></table>

The vast majority of attenuated negative imperatives in non-reported speech are fully predictable from their plain negative imperative (displayed in Table 13) and their attenuated positive counterparts (see Table 11), as illustrated by the s2PL.O1PL form in (56).

(56a) tt-êecárnycé
FHH
NEG1-look.PFV.IMP.S2PL.O1PL
mâj
F
NEG2
‘Don’t look (PL) at us!’ (plain negative imperative)

<footnote n="32">32. *tt* can profitably be analyzed as one consonant phoneme in Koalib, see Quint (2006: 93–109; 2009: 83–99).</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33. While, in positive imperatives, the attenuative suffix prevents the harmonization of the s1INCL.PL person index with the /ɛ/ of the verb stem èecé ‘see, look’ (see footnote 30 under Table 11), this harmonization takes place in attenuated negative imperatives, where the s1INCL.PL index is èr-. I have no explanation for this difference between the positive and negative forms.</footnote>
(56b) + èecárnycéttè

LHHL

‘Please look (PL) at us!’ (attenuated positive imperative)

(56c) > **tt-êecárnycéttè** mâj

FHHL

F

‘Please don’t look (PL) at us!’ (attenuated negative imperative)

The only non-predictable forms are s1INCL.PL imperatives, where it seems that the presence of the negative marker *ttè* triggers a split (optional for s1INCL.PL.O3SG) of the falling tone (F = H+L, see also (55)) of the attenuative marker -ttÊ, whose H component associates with the syllable preceding -ttÊ. This mechanism is illustrated by means of the s1INCL.PL.O3PL imperative in (57).

(57a) *ttè-àr-cE-**ttÊ**-èecé*

mâj

L-L-NST-F-LH

F

NEG1-s1INCL.PL-O3PL-**ATT**-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

NEG2

(57b) *tt-èr-cÉ-**ttÈ**-èecé*

mâj

L-H-L-LH

F

(57c) *tt-èrcétt-èecé*

mâj

LH-LH

F

‘Please let’s (PL) not look at them!’

<table><caption>Table 14 — Attenuated reported negative imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’, compared with the corresponding plain reported negative imperative</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Speech Participants</th><th colspan="2">S.SG</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><th>Reported plain</th><th>Reported attenuated</th><th>Reported plain</th><th>Reported attenuated</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.o1SG</td><td>tt-êecányè mâj</td><td>tt-êecány(é)ttè mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnyè mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnyéttè mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o1PL</td><td>tt-êecánycè mâj</td><td>tt-êecánycéttè mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnycè mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnycéttè mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3SG</td><td>tt-êecâ mâj</td><td>tt-êecáttè mâj</td><td>tt-êecàrê mâj</td><td>tt-êecàrttê mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.o3PL</td><td>tt-êecàcê mâj</td><td>tt-êecàc(è)ttê mâj</td><td>tt-êecàrcê mâj</td><td>tt-êecàrcèttê mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th colspan="2">S.DU</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><td>s1PL.O3SG</td><td>tté nţ-èecé mâj</td><td>tté nţétt-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èr-êecé mâj</td><td>tt-èrtt-êecé mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s1PL.O3PL</td><td>tté nţéc-èecé mâj</td><td>tté nţécétt-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èrc-êecé mâj</td><td>tt-èrcètt-êecé mâj</td></tr></tbody></table>

Most attenuated reported negative imperative forms are fully predictable from their plain reported negative imperative (displayed in Table 14) and their attenuated reported positive counterparts (see Table 12), as illustrated by the s1INCL.DU.O3SG form in (58).

(58a) *tté nţ-èecé*

mâj

H

LH

F

NEG1

s1INCL.DU.O3SG-look.PFV.IMP

NEG2

‘(and s/he said:) Let’s (DU) not look at him/her/it/NP!’ (plain reported negative imperative)
(58b) + ṇétt-ɛ̃ɛcɛ́

H-LH

‘(and s/he said:) Please let’s (DU) look at him/her/it/NP!’ (attenuated reported positive imperative)

(58c) > tté ṇétt-ɛ̃ɛcɛ́ mâj

H

H-LH

F

‘(and s/he said:) Please let’s (DU) not look at him/her/it/NP!’ (attenuated reported negative imperative)

However, s2SG.O3PL and s2PL.O3 imperatives have unpredictable forms, as the falling tone F of the reported speech marker -Ê, present in both plain reported negative imperatives (on the last syllable of the verb) and attenuated reported positive imperatives (on the syllable preceding the attenuative marker) is not realized, as illustrated by the s2PL.O3SG form in (59). The suppression of the falling tone of the reported speech marker could be due to a phonological rule limiting the number of falling tones associated to one and the same verb form to two. As the first negator is also marked for reported speech in s2.O3 imperatives (see Table 9), s2SG.O3PL and s2PL.O3 attenuated reported negative imperatives would have three falling tones (60), which is not allowed by the two-falling-tone rule described above.

(59a) tt-êecàrê mânj

FLF

F

NEG1-look.PFV.IMP.REP.S2PL.O3SG NEG2

‘(and s/he said:) Don’t look (PL) at him/her/it/NP!’ (plain reported negative imperative)

(59b) + èecàrêttê

LLFF

‘(and s/he said:) Please look (PL) at him/her/it/NP!’ (attenuated reported positive imperative)

(59c) > tt-êecàrttê mâj

FLF

F

‘(and s/he said:) Please don’t look (PL) at him/her/it/NP!’ (attenuated reported negative imperative)

(60) *tt-êecàrêttê mâj

FLFF

F

‘(and s/he said:) Please don’t look (PL) at him/her/it/NP!’ (three falling tones in one verb form)

The existence of this rule may explain why the tone of the last two syllables of the attenuative reported negative s2SG.O3SG imperative is the same as its positive reported counterpart: as the positive form has no falling tone (see Table 12 and (55)), its tonal scheme is compatible with the falling tone F of the reported speech marker -Ê, which is associated with the first negator of the negative form (61).

(61a) ttè-Ê-èecàttè mâj

L-F-LHL

F

NEG1-REP-look.PFV.IMP.REP.ATT.S2SG.O3SG NEG2

(61b) > tt-êecàttè mâj

FHL

F

‘(and s/he said:) Please don’t look (SG) at him/her/it/NP!’
The attenuative marker -ttÊ also has non-imperative uses: as a general rule, it tends to increase the illocutionary force of the sentence, be it assertive (62) or interrogative (63).

(62) kwè-mè-nyè-Ø-ttê-úu̯r-ètè nţà (...) CLkw-PRF-S1SG-O3SG-ATT-cut-MAL.IPFV.CFG head.o 'Indeed, I had his head cut (Herod about John the Baptist<fnref n="34" />) (lit. I did cut him head) (...).'

(63) kw-àapà-Ø-ttê kwômné η-kw-ó tâkkà? CLkw-bring.PFV.S3SG-O3SG-ATT something.o DEM-CLkw-PROX where? 'Where on earth did s/he bring this thing from (lit. s/he brought on earth thing this where)?'

Therefore -ttÊ seems to have an overall intensifying value. However, when this morpheme interacts with the imperative, the resulting meaning is one of MILD COMMAND. Koalib also has an intensive imperative, which is dealt with in the next section.

## 4.3 Intensive imperative

Koalib uses another suffix, namely -mρÀ-[mbÀ] with a tonal scheme HL, to increase the strength of a command (64):

(64a) àntècà speak.PFV.IMP.S2SG 'Speak (SG)!' (plain imperative)

(64b) àntècá-mpà speak.PFV.IMP.S2SG-INT 'But why don't you (SG) speak?! Just speak (SG)!' (intensive imperative)

Table 15 provides the paradigm of the intensive positive imperative.<fnref n="35" />

<table><caption>Table 15 — Intensive positive imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’, compared with the plain imperative</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Speech Participants</th><th colspan="2">S.SG</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><th>Plain</th><th>Intensive</th><th>Plain</th><th>Intensive</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.01SG</td><td>èecányé</td><td>èecánypà</td><td>èecárnyé</td><td>èecárnyémpà</td></tr><tr><td>s2.01PL</td><td>èecánycé</td><td>èecánycémpà</td><td>èecárnycé</td><td>èecárnycémpà</td></tr><tr><td>s2.03SG</td><td>èecà</td><td>èecámpà</td><td>èecàr</td><td>èecàrémpà ~ èecármpà</td></tr><tr><td>s2.03PL</td><td>èecàcè</td><td>èecàcémpà</td><td>èecàrcè</td><td>èecàrcémpà</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">S.DU</td><td colspan="2">S.PL</td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3SG</td><td>nţ-èecé</td><td>nţémp-èecé</td><td>èr-èecé</td><td>àrémp-èecé<fnref n="36" /></td></tr><tr><td>s1INCL.O3PL</td><td>nţéc-èecé</td><td>nţéc(é)mp-èecé</td><td>èrc-èecé</td><td>àrcémp-èecé</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="34">34. See Luke 9:9 (‘But Herod said,’ “I beheaded John. (Who, then, is this I hear such things about?” And he tried to see him).”</footnote>

<footnote n="35">35. The S1INCL auxiliary constructions (see Tables 7 and 10) are not documented in their intensive forms.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">36. In Table 15, as happens with attenuated imperatives (see footnote 30 under Table 11), the intensive suffix prevents the harmonization of the S1INCL.PL person index with the /ɛ/ of the verb stem èecé ‘see, look’, and the S1INCL.PL person index is therefore realized àr-, with its original lexical vowel (see Section 3.1.1).</footnote>
Morphologically, the intensive suffix behaves similarly to the attenuative suffix: it is always inserted after the subject and object indices. Regarding tone and the segmental realization of the suffix, the following observations can be made.

For s2.o3 imperatives, the floating high tone H of the intensive suffix attaches to the preceding syllable of the verb (or to an epenthetic /E/ in the case of the s2PL.O3SG imperative) and replaces the low tone of the non-intensive form, as illustrated by the s2SG.O3PL imperative in (65).

(65a) èecàcè-μρÀ
LLL-HL
look.PFV.IMP.S2SG.O3PL-INT

(65b) > èecàcémpà
LLHL
‘Just look (SG) at them!’

For s2.o1 imperatives, the floating high tone H of the intensive suffix merges with the high tone H of the preceding syllable of the verb, as illustrated by the s2PL.O1SG imperative in (66).

(66a) èecárnyé-μρÀ
LHH-HL
look.PFV.IMP.S2PL.O1SG-INT

(66b) > èecárnyémpà
LHHL
‘Just look (PL) at me!’

For s1INCL imperatives, the final vowel of the intensive suffix is dropped and its low tone merges with the low tone of the verb stem èecé ‘see, look’. Then, as far as the s1INCL.DU imperatives are concerned, the floating high tone H of the intensive suffix merges with the preceding high tone of the s1INCL.DU index nṭ(É), as illustrated by the s1INCL.DU.O3PL imperative in (67).

(67a) nṭÉ-cE-μρÀ-èecé
H⁺-NST-HL-LH
s1INCL.DU-O3PL-INT-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(67b) > nṭÉ-cÉ-μρÀ-èecé
H-H-HL-LH

(67c) > nṭéc(é)mp-èecé
H(H)-LH
‘Let’s (DU) just look at them!’

As far as the s1INCL.PL imperatives are concerned, the floating high tone H of the intensive suffix attaches to an epenthetic (s1INCL.PL.O3SG) or an underlying (s1INCL.PL.O3PL) E, which is placed between the person indices and the intensive suffix. This case is illustrated by the s1INCL.PL.O3SG imperative in (68).

(68a) àr-Ø-μρÀ-èecé
L-Ø-HL-LH
s1INCL.PL.O3SG-INT-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP
(68b) > àr-É-mpÀ-èɛcɛ́

L-H-L-LH

s1INCL.PL.O3SG-EP-INT-look.IPFV.CFG.IMP

(68c) > àrɛ́mp-èɛcɛ́

LH-LH

‘Let’s (PL) just look at him/her/it/NP!’

An intensive imperative can be used in reported speech. However, the forms have been checked and differ neither segmentally nor tonally from their non-reported speech counterparts, as documented in Table 15. The fact that the reported speech morpheme -È never modifies the segmental or the tonal characteristics of the intensive imperative is probably due to the fact that the intensive suffix -ḿpÀ has a ʰL tonal scheme, i.e., a tonal melody similar to the falling tone F (= H+L) of the reported speech morpheme -È. We have already seen in (53) that a succession of two falling tones (F+F) associated with one and the same syllable can be simplified into one falling tone, i.e., F+F > F. A comparable phenomenon may account for the fact that the falling tone of the reported speech morpheme -È never surfaces in reported intensive imperatives, as illustrated by the s2SG.O3PL imperative in (69).

(69a) èecàcè-È-ḿpÀ

LLL-F-HL (= LLL-F-F)

look.PFV.IMP.S2SG.O3PL-REP-INT

(69b) > èecàcɛ́mpà

LLHL

‘(and s/he said:) Just look (SG) at them!’

At any rate, the actual forms of the reported intensive imperatives show that the tonal behavior (lin-
ked with the floating high tone ʰ of -ḿpÀ) of the intensive marker is different from that of the atte-
nuated suffix -ttÈ, which, at least in parts of the paradigm (see Table 12), allows the falling tone of
the reported speech morpheme to surface, as can be shown by comparing the s2SG.O3PL reported
intensive imperative (69) with its reported attenuated counterpart (70):

(70a) èecàcè-È-ttÈ

LLL-F-F

look.PFV.IMP.S2SG.O3PL-REP-ATT

(70b) > èecàcɛ́ttɛ̂

LLFF

‘(and s/he said:) Please look (SG) at them!’

Table 16 provides the paradigm of the intensive negative imperative in non-reported speech.
<table><caption>Table 16 — Intensive negative imperative paradigm of the transitive verb èecé ‘see, look’, compared with the corresponding plain negative imperative</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Speech Participants</th><th colspan="2">S.SG</th><th colspan="2">S.PL</th></tr><tr><th>Plain</th><th>Intensive</th><th>Plain</th><th>Intensive</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s2.01SG</td><td>tt-êecányé mâj</td><td>tt-êecány(é)<b>mpà</b> mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnyé mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnyémpà mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.01PL</td><td>tt-êecánycé mâj</td><td>tt-êecánycémpà mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnycé mâj</td><td>tt-êecárnycémpà mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.03SG</td><td>tt-èecà mâj</td><td>tt-èecámpà mâj</td><td>tt-èecàr mâj</td><td>tt-èecàrémpà ~<br>tt-èecámpà mâj</td></tr><tr><td>s2.03PL</td><td>tt-èecàcè mâj</td><td>tt-èecàcémpà mâj</td><td>tt-èecàrcè mâj</td><td>tt-èecàrcémpà mâj</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>S.DU</b></td><td></td><td><b>S.PL</b></td></tr><tr><td>s1PL.03SG</td><td>tté nţ-éecé mâj</td><td>tté-nţémp-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èr-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èrémp-èecé mâj<sup>37</sup></td></tr><tr><td>s1PL.03PL</td><td>tté nţéc-éecé mâj</td><td>tté-nţéc(é)<b>mp</b>-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èrc-èecé mâj</td><td>tt-èrcémp-èecé mâj</td></tr></tbody></table>

In practice all intensive negative imperative forms of Table 16 are predictable from their plain negative (displayed in Table 16) and intensive positive counterparts (see Table 15), as illustrated by the s2SG.01SG forms in (71).

(71a) **tt-êecányé** mâj
FHH F
NEG1-look.PFV.IMP.S2SG.01SG NEG2

‘Don’t look (SG) at me!’ (plain negative imperative)

(71b) + èecánypà
LHL

‘Just look (SG) at me!’ (intensive positive imperative)

(71c) > **tt-êecány(é)mpà**<sup>38</sup> mâj
FH(H)L F

‘Just don’t look (SG) at me!’ (intensive negative imperative)

Reported intensive negative imperatives have been systematically checked for all subject+object combinations. They do not show any difference to their non-reported speech counterparts. The reason for this lack of specific morphology for the reported forms has already been given above in the discussion about intensive positive imperatives following Table 15.

The attenuative and intensive suffixes are mutually exclusive.

The intensive suffix also has non-imperative uses. Similar to the attenuative suffix, the intensive suffix tends to increase the illocutionary force of the sentence, see the exclamation in (72).

<footnote n="37">37. In Table 16, the s1INCL.PL person index is realized èr-, and its vowel seems to harmonize with the /e/ of the first negator tt(e). I have no explanation for this phenomenon, which contrasts with both positive intensive forms on the one hand, where the s1INCL.PL person index is realized as àr- (see Table 15), and attenuated negative imperatives on the other hand, where the s1INCL.PL person index is realized as èr- (see Table 13 and footnote 33).</footnote>

<footnote n="38">38. Although it has not been explicitly checked, it is very probable that the optional (é) of the s2SG.01SG intensive negative imperative (see Table 16) can also appear in its positive counterpart (see Table 15).</footnote>
<table><tr><td>(72)</td><td>á</td><td>m-p-é|ŋè<fnref n="39" /></td><td>yè|àaŋálè-nà!</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>s2SG</td><td>PRF-INT-know.IPFV.CFG</td><td>thing.O-inside</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">'You know some things, you know a lot about it (lit. you've really known thing inside)!'</td></tr></table>

## 4.4 Irregular imperatives

Some few verbs have irregular imperative forms (Table 17), the use of which is limited to s2 imperatives.

<table><caption>Table 17 — Irregular imperatives</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Verb stem</th><th rowspan="2">Meaning</th><th colspan="2">Imperative</th><th rowspan="2">Type</th></tr><tr><th>IPFV.CFG</th><th>PFV</th><th>s2SG.<br>(O3SG)<sup>40</sup></th><th>s2PL.<br>(O3SG)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ìppí</td><td>ippitu</td><td>'beat!'</td><td>ppìtù</td><td>ppìtìr</td><td>shortened</td></tr><tr><td>èɛ́lɛ́</td><td>intu</td><td>'move!'</td><td>ntù</td><td>ntìr</td><td>shortened</td></tr><tr><td>àaŋé</td><td>aaŋo</td><td>'go/come back!'</td><td>àrò</td><td>àrèr</td><td>shortened</td></tr><tr><td>èɛɛ́cɛ́</td><td>eeca</td><td>'see, look!'</td><td>èɛ́</td><td>[èecàr]</td><td>deviant</td></tr><tr><td>ímtè</td><td>imtu</td><td>'catch, take!'</td><td>mèttù<br>(máttà (+CTP))</td><td>mèttìr</td><td>deviant</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td>'take care, beware!'</td><td>éŋì</td><td>éŋìr</td><td>orphan</td></tr><tr><td>NA<br>(*kàamé)</td><td>(*kaama)</td><td>'come this way!'</td><td>kàamà</td><td>kàamàr</td><td>orphan</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td>'no way, don't even<br>mention that!'</td><td>mà</td><td>màr</td><td>orphan</td></tr></tbody></table>

As indicated in Table 17 (see column ‘type’), irregular imperatives can be divided into three types, namely (i) shortened, (ii) deviant and (iii) orphan imperatives, which will be discussed in turn.

### 4.4.1 Shortened imperatives.

If we compare the irregular s2 imperative with the perfective aspect-motion stem from which it usually derives (see Table 3 and following discussion), the imperative lacks a segment found in the perfective stem (see comparable instances in Latin (Aikhenvald 2010: 19)). An initial /i/ is missing in the case of èɛ́lɛ́ ‘move’ (IMP ntù vs. expected *ìntù) and ìppí ‘beat’ (IMP ppìtù vs. expected *ìppìtù). In the case of àaŋé ‘go/come back’, a long vowel is shortened (IMP àrò vs. regular àaŋò, also attested).

### 4.4.2 Deviant imperatives

Deviant s2 imperatives are not (regularly) derived from the perfective aspect-motion stem.

The imperative èɛ́ ‘look (SG)!’ seems to be a shortened form of èɛɛ́cɛ́, the centrifugal imperfective stem of ‘see, look’. However, it is not sure that this etymology is accurate, for two reasons: first, èɛ́ has two other attested free variants, àá and èɛ̂, which are even further removed from èɛɛ́cɛ́. Second, èɛ́ has no irregular s2PL counterpart. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that èɛ́ ~ èɛ̂ ~ àá is rather an interjection than an irregular imperative.

<footnote n="39">39. In this example, /p/ [b] is a shortened form of -mpÀ when combined with the -m- perfect marker.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">40. As far as person indices are concerned, there is no morphological difference between the s2SG imperative of intransitive verbs (such as èɛ́lɛ́ ‘move’) and the s2SG.O3SG imperative of transitive verbs (such as ìppí ‘beat’), as O3SG is a zero morpheme for this inflection (see Section 3.1.2), hence my choice to put the O3SG in brackets. The same line of reasoning applies to s2PL (intransitive) and s2PL.O3SG (transitive) imperatives.</footnote>
The imperative of ímtè ‘catch, take’ also displays several morphological peculiarities: first, the forms mèttù (s2sg) and mèttir (s2pl) are obviously derived from the perfective aspect-motion stem imtu, but the initial vowel /i/ has been dropped and the medial /t/ geminated. No other imperative is produced this way. Actually, even though the doubling of a medial consonant is a morphological process attested in the verbal system, it is mostly used for the production of frequentative forms (73)-(74).<fnref n="41" />

(73) *iití [iiðí] ‘trap (v.)’ (basic verb)
> *iití [ittí] ‘trap often/regularly’ (frequentative)

(74) *éctè [éεðè] ‘get pregnant’ (basic verb)
> *éttèttè [éttèttè] ‘get often/regularly pregnant’ (frequentative)

Second, the form máttà (s2sg/pl) is clearly related to mèttù and mèttir. However, it is only used when preceded by a centripetal imperative (75)-(76), and it is compulsorily introduced by the subordinator à ‘and then [future], so that’. Semantically, máttà can be considered as a special type of imperative, as it is only used in imperative contexts. However, from a morphological point of view, it is better described as an irregular centripetal stem of ímtè (whose regular centripetal stem is imte) and a conjunctive form (see Section 2.3.1), which explains why máttà lacks the typical s2pl imperative ending -r (76). At any rate, the tonal scheme HL associated with máttà is clearly abnormal, even for a centripetal stem, whose tone is supposed to be LL in the syntactic context in which máttà is attested. Therefore, máttà seems to be a totally idiosyncratic form, the study of which would deserve further research.

(75) èelà
èelà à máttà
move.CTP.IMP.S2SG SUB.S2SG take.CTP.IMP
‘Come and take this thing!’

ηèràaŋálè
ηèràaŋálè
thing.o

ηó<fnref n="42" />
Ø-η-ó
DEM-CLη-PROX

(76) èelàr
èelà-r é<fnref n="43" /> máttà
move.CTP.IMP-S2PL SUB.S2PL take.CTP.IMP
‘Come (PL) and take (PL) this thing!’

ηèràaŋálè
ηèràaŋálè
thing.o

ηó
Ø-η-ó
DEM-CLη-PROX

### 4.4.3 Orphan imperatives

Three of the imperatives given in Table 17 are isolated inflected forms: no other form of the paradigm is attested for them. The fact that all three orphan imperatives have an -r [r] ending for s2pl forms clearly shows that they morphologically behave more like verbs than interjections. In the case of *kàamà/kàamàr, one can even posit an original basic (= centrifugal) verb stem *kàamé: *kàamà/kàamàr would then be the regular imperative forms of *kàamé and the last remnants of this basic verb in today’s Koalib.

The existence of *kàamé at an older stage of the language is rendered plausible by the fact that its reflexes are still observable in diverse verb extensions that appear to be derived from this very root,<fnref n="44" /> such as *kàamàcé, a locative extension (suffix -AcE, see Table 2), ‘flank on both sides of (e.g., a flock in order to keep it together)’, whose spatial meaning seems plausibly related to the orphan imperative *kàamà ‘come this way!’

<footnote n="41">41. For more details about frequentative inflection in Koalib, see Quint & Ali Karmal Kokko (forthcoming b).</footnote>

<footnote n="42">42. For (75) and (76), the examples have been presented in two lines: the upper line corresponds to the actual phonological realization of the sentence, while the lower line proposes a morphological segmentation and reanalysis (in particular regarding the subordinators and the máttà form) of the upper line.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">43. Here the subordinator is realized /é/ (instead of expected */á/). I cannot account for this phonetic irregularity.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44. For other cases of verb extensions derived from a basic verb that is not attested anymore in contemporary Koalib, see Quint (2010: 301–302), and Quint & Ali Karmal Kokko (forthcoming b).</footnote>
#### 4.4.4 The meaning of irregular imperatives

Independent of their morphological idiosyncrasies, irregular imperatives have something in common: they are amongst the most frequent commands used in any human language (Aikhenvald 2010: 37, 45). For example, many Romance (Floricic & Molinu 2023: 149–172; Quint 2015: 199–200), Afro-Asiatic (Aikhenvald 2010: 322–323; Cohen 1979–1984) or other (Aikhenvald 2010: 33, 36) languages have irregular imperatives for ‘go’ and ‘come’, both of which correspond semantically to Koalib èɛlɛ́ ‘move’. Koalib and Romance or Afro-Asiatic languages are unrelated but the irregular imperatives observed for ‘go/come/move’ in these different instances of the human ability to speak can be attributed to the fact that humans frequently ask their fellow human beings to move or go to or come from another place. Ultimately, the high frequency of Koalib irregular imperatives seems to be the main reason for their coming into existence and their retention in today’s Koalib.<fnref n="45" />

### 5. IMPERATIVE-RELATED FORMS: OTHER EXPRESSIONS OF COMMANDS

In addition to the use of a specific imperative mood, whose intricacies and peculiarities have been explained in the two previous sections, Koalib also has at its disposal other morphological devices to express notions semantically related to **COMMAND**. In this section, I will study two such devices, namely (i) jussive constructions and (ii) interjections expressing commands addressed to animals.

#### 5.1 Jussive constructions

Jussive constructions are used to express wishes, i.e., “requests that a nonlocutor<fnref n="46" /> do something” (Dobrushina 2012: 2; see also Aikhenvald 2017: 7). They comply with the following formula (Figure 3) and are exemplified in (77)-(79).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 — Syntactic formula of jussive constructions</figcaption></figure>

(77) èté-ŋá Állà cùuŋí-náanà!
CONN-O2SG God.s keep.clean-over
‘May God bless you!’

(78) ètò-ŋw cùuŋí nyò-ŋwó-cé-náanà!
CONN-S3SG keep.clean O1SG-O-O.PL-over
‘May He (God) bless us!’

(79) èté Kwókkò dàppètà-lò kkékkèrèm!
CONN Kwokko get.down.IPFV.CTP-down now
‘Let Kwokko come down now!’<fnref n="47" />

Jussive constructions can be considered insubordinate clauses (Cristofaro 2016) for the following reasons:

* The verb is conjunctive (see Section 2.3.1).

* The subject and object indices comply with the general morphological rules of subordinate clauses introduced by a conjunction in Koalib (Quint in preparation).

<footnote n="45">45. For general considerations about the link between high frequency and morphological irregularity, see Haspelmath & Sims (2010: 265–280).</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46. In the same paper Dobrushina (2012: 1) defines the “nonlocutor” as “someone who is not a participant of the speech act”.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47. This sentence has been produced using Matthew 27:42 ‘let him come down now from the cross (and we will believe in him)’ as a model.</footnote>
* The connector *ete* behaves here as a typical subordinator,<fnref n="48" /> as shown by its interactions with subject and object indices (Quint in preparation);

* Semantically, the whole jussive construction can be conceived of as a complement clause depending on an underlying volitive/wish verb, e.g., ‘*[I wish] God blessed you’, ‘*[I would be pleased] if God blessed you’.

In sum, jussive constructions can be structurally described as subordinate clauses that are pragmatically used as independent clauses, as described for many other languages of the world, e.g., Germanic (D'Hertefelt 2017) and Romance (Sansiñena 2017). Semantically, jussive constructions are certainly not commands in the narrow meaning of this term. However, their WISH content implies a special commitment of the speaker into the realization of the wish, and therefore a certain proximity to the notion of COMMAND, which can be defined as requiring someone to fulfil a given action. Syntactically, the insubordinate status of jussive constructions, which are somehow halfway between independent and subordinate clauses, also accentuates their proximity to imperatives, which were described likewise (Section 3.1.1) as being halfway between indicative verbs (typically used in independent clauses) and conjunctive verbs (typically used in subordinate clauses).

Note that the existence of reported, attenuated or intensive jussives has not been checked.

## 5.2 Interjections expressing commands addressed to animals

Koalib speakers have at their disposal a small number of interjections used to express commands addressed to different animals. All the attested forms are shown in Table 18.

<table><caption>Table 18 — Interjections expressing commands addressed to animals</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Animal</th><th colspan="3">Meaning of the interjection</th></tr><tr><th>'go away, get out!'</th><th>'come here!'</th><th>other</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>camel</td><td>ány (&lt; ar.)</td><td></td><td>ány-ány (RED.) 'go on!/get moving!'<br>(encouragement to a male<br>to breed/service)</td></tr><tr><td>cat</td><td>béc (&lt; ar. [bis])</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>cow</td><td>déj ~ hék</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>dog</td><td>cêk ~ cê ~ jér<br>(&lt; ar.<fnref n="49" />)</td><td>côɔ (&lt; ar.)</td><td>ák (&lt; ar.) 'enough!',<br>ácèk (&lt; ar.) 'go get it!'<br>(after an animal, most often a rabbit)</td></tr><tr><td>donkey, sheep</td><td>ár (&lt; ar.)</td><td></td><td>ár-ár (RED.) 'boo!, giddy up!'<br>(donkey only)</td></tr><tr><td>goat</td><td>tták (&lt; ar.)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>hen</td><td>kér (&lt; ar.)</td><td>kúrr (&lt; ar.)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>horse</td><td></td><td></td><td>húr (&lt; ar.) 'boo!, giddy up!'</td></tr><tr><td>pig</td><td>kêc</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>pigeon</td><td></td><td>hám (&lt; ar. [ham])</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="48">48. In the auxiliary construction of the S1INCL negative imperative (see Table 7 and discussion thereof in Section 3.2), the connector *ete* can also be analyzed as a subordinator. Various other uses of *ete* as a subordinator are attested in Koalib, but their analysis would go beyond the scope of this paper (for more details, see Quint in preparation). Note, finally, that *ete* also functions as genitive marker between two NPs (Quint 2022).</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49. An Arabic origin has been certified only for *jér*.</footnote>
Some of these Koalib interjections are shared with (or borrowed from) Sudanese Arabic (abbreviated as “ar.” in Table 14).<fnref n="50" /> The influence of Arabic is also apparent from the use of initial /h/, a phoneme normally absent from the traditional Koalib lexical stock (Quint 2006; 2009). Regarding their phonological characteristics, all but one of these interjections are monosyllabic. The fact that these words are short can be held as an indicator of a high frequency of use (see Section 4.4).

Furthermore, in spite of the limited size and the non-exhaustive nature of the sample of interjections provided in Table 18, several semantic trends are observable: first, these interjections are only intended for domestic animals, i.e., those animals whom humans live and interact with on a daily basis. Second, most of these commands are addressed to animals to make them ‘go away’ or ‘get out’ from the place occupied by the human speaker. Third, the dog is clearly the animal favored by the humans for communication, as it is the possible recipient of at least four different types of order in Koalib.

Finally, it should be stressed that such a system of interjections specifically aimed at communica-
ting with animals is commonly found in many rural cultures<fnref n="51" /> across the world.

6. CONCLUSION

In this paper, I have explored, for the first time in such detail, the expression of commands in Koalib. Regarding verbal imperatives, Koalib certainly stands out in several ways. As a matter of fact, it involves a rich morphology, involving several stems and, in the case of transitive verbs, combinations of subject and object indices, as well as the expression of associated motion (see Section 3.1.3). Furthermore, most Koalib imperatives are morphologically marked when used in reported speech, which is clearly a typological rarity.<fnref n="52" /> Lastly, the existence of specific verb markers for both attenuative and intensive imperatives also seems to be a cross-linguistic original feature.

This overview of Koalib imperatives is a first step towards a full account of Koalib verbal mor-
phology (Quint in preparation).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank here Siddig Ali Karmal Kokko, without whose patience and commitment I
would never have been able to satisfactorily understand the subtleties of Koalib morphology, as well
as Hilary Chappell for her suggestions in English, and Yvonne Treis for her careful, painstaking edi-
torial work. I am solely responsible for any and all mistakes that might have made their way into this
contribution.

<footnote n="50">50. For a similar sociolinguistic profile of commands addressed to animals, where many forms are borrowed from the dominant language, see Mihas (2017: 102–103), who studies imperatives in Ashaninka Satipo, an Arawak language of Peru influenced by Spanish.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">51. For instance, in Languedocien Occitan, there is also an interjection *tiron!*, *tiron!* [ti’ru, ti’ru], to call ducks (when one wants to feed them), in French, there is a interjection *hue!* [y], to encourage horses to speed up, just like English *boo!, giddy up!*, and Koalib *húr!*, etc. See also Aikhenvald (2010: 317) for Ndjébbana (an Australian language), Azeb (2013: 222–228) for Zargulla (Omotic) and other Ethiopian languages, and Bynon (1976) for Berber. For a cross-linguistic approach to this phenomenon, see Andrason et al. (2024).</footnote>

<footnote n="52">52. Other examples are attested in the literature, e.g., Zargulla (Azeb 2013: 220–222), in which “reported imperatives” are expressed by means of segmental morphology, while Koalib mostly resorts to tonal contrasts.</footnote>
ABBREVIATIONS

Grammatical and other abbreviations

<table><tr><td>ar.</td><td>Arabic</td></tr><tr><td>ATT</td><td>attenuative marker</td></tr><tr><td>CFG</td><td>centrifugal</td></tr><tr><td>CL<sub>x</sub></td><td>noun class marker (the variable subscript indicates the agreement marker characteristic of each noun class, as described in Quint (2022: 179-180))</td></tr><tr><td>CONN</td><td>connector</td></tr><tr><td>CTP</td><td>centripetal</td></tr><tr><td>DEM</td><td>demonstrative</td></tr><tr><td>DU</td><td>dual</td></tr><tr><td>EP</td><td>epenthetic segment</td></tr><tr><td>EXCL</td><td>exclusive</td></tr><tr><td>HAB</td><td>habitual</td></tr><tr><td>HVHS</td><td>High Vowel Harmony Set</td></tr><tr><td>IMP</td><td>imperative</td></tr><tr><td>INCL</td><td>inclusive</td></tr><tr><td>INT</td><td>intensive</td></tr><tr><td>intr.</td><td>intransitive</td></tr><tr><td>IPFV</td><td>imperfective</td></tr><tr><td>MAL</td><td>malefactive</td></tr><tr><td>NEG1/2</td><td>first/second negator</td></tr><tr><td>NP</td><td>noun phrase</td></tr><tr><td>NST</td><td>not specified for tone</td></tr><tr><td>O/O</td><td>object</td></tr><tr><td>PFV</td><td>perfective</td></tr><tr><td>PL</td><td>plural</td></tr><tr><td>POSS</td><td>possessive</td></tr><tr><td>PRF</td><td>perfect</td></tr><tr><td>PROX</td><td>proximal</td></tr><tr><td>RED</td><td>reduplicated form</td></tr><tr><td>REP</td><td>reported speech morpheme</td></tr><tr><td>S/S</td><td>subject</td></tr><tr><td>SG</td><td>singular</td></tr><tr><td>SUB</td><td>subordinator</td></tr><tr><td>tr.</td><td>transitive</td></tr></table>

Tone conventions

' high tone

'' low tone

^ falling tone (HL)
ˇ rising tone (LH)

~ HLH contour tone

(...) sentence continued

+ tone spread

|| blocking of tone spread

F falling (HL) tone

H high tone

H floating high tone

HLH HLH contour tone

L low tone

R rising (LH) tone

n number of syllables with n ≥ 1

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. *Imperatives and commands*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2017. Imperatives and commands: A cross-linguistic view. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), *Imperatives and commands*, 1–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Andrason, Alexander, Anna Luisa Daigneault, Maya Hendrix, Rebecca Pizzitola & Anusha Somu. 2024. A living database of conative animal calls (Version 1.1). *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4899510.

Azeb Amha. 2013. Directives to humans and to domestic animals: The imperative and some interjections in Zargulla. In Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle & Martine Vanhove (eds.), *Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cushitic and Omotic Languages, Paris, 16-18 April 2008*, 211–229. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.

Bynon, James. 1976. Domestic animal calling in a Berber tribe. In William C. McCormack & Stephen R. Wurm (eds.), *Language and man. Anthropological issues*, 39–65. The Hague: Mouton.

Cohen, David. 1979–1984. “Viens !”, “Donne !”, etc. : Impératifs déictiques. *Comptes rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Études Chamito-Sémitiques (GLECS) XXIV–XXVIII(3)*. 521–524.

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. *Subordination*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2016. Routes to insubordination: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Nick Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds.), *Insubordination*, 393–422. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.15cri.

D’Hertefelt, Sarah. 2017. Directive conditional and complement insubordination in Germanic languages. In Daniël Olmen & Simone Heinold (eds.), *Imperative and directive strategies*, 209–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.184.07dhe.

Dobrushina, Nina. 2012. What is the jussive for? A study of third person commands in six Caucasian languages. *Linguistics* 50(1). 1–25.

Ferlita, Céline & Nicolas Quint. 2024. Le koalib. In *Café des langues*. Villejuif: CNRS-ARDIS. https://images.cnrs.fr/video/8020.

Floricic, Franck & Lucia Molinu. 2023. Romance monosyllabic imperatives and markedness. In Thomas Stolz, Nicole Nau & Cornelia Stroh (eds.), *Monosyllables: From phonology to typology*, 149–172. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Guillaume, Antoine & Harold Koch (eds.). 2021. *Associated motion*. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110692099.
Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea D. Sims. 2010. *Understanding morphology*. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

Mihas, Elena. 2017. Imperatives in Ashaninka Satipo (Kampa Arawak) of Peru. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), *Commands: A cross-linguistic typology*, 83–105. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198803225.003.0004.

Quint, Nicolas. 2006. *Phonologie de la langue koalibe*. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Quint, Nicolas. 2009. *The phonology of Koalib, a Kordofanian language of the Nuba Mountains (Sudan)*. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.

Quint, Nicolas. 2010. Benefactive and malefactive verb extensions in the Koalib verb system. In Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), *Benefactives and Malefactives. Typological perspectives and case studies*, 295–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.92.12qui.

Quint, Nicolas. 2015. Capeverdean words derived from Portuguese non-infinitive verbal forms: A descriptive and comparative study. *Papia* 25(2). 189–215.

Quint, Nicolas. 2020. Kordofanian. In Rainer Vossen & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (eds.), *The Oxford handbook of African languages*, 239–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Quint, Nicolas. 2022. Classes nominales dans deux langues Niger-Congo : le baïnouck djifanghorois (atlantique) et le koalib (kordofanien). *Faits de Langues* 52(2). 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-05202010.

Quint, Nicolas. 2025. *Morphologie et tonologie de l'impératif du verbe koalib (Version 1)*. CoCoON (Huma-Num - CNRS). https://doi.org/10.60714/COCOON.E846920A-F40F-4C69-8692-0AF40F0C69C0.

Quint, Nicolas. in preparation. *Grammar of the Koalib language*.

Quint, Nicolas & Siddig Ali Karmal Kokko. forthcoming a. *Dictionnaire koalib-français*. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Quint, Nicolas & Siddig Ali Karmal Kokko. forthcoming b. Verb extensions in Koalib: A first general overview followed by some brief comparative considerations. In Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Helene Fatima Idris & Jan Junglas (eds.), *Nuba Mountain language studies: Contemporary perspectives*. Cologne: USB Monographs.

Quint, Nicolas & Marc Allassonnière-Tang. 2022. Inferring case paradigms with computational classifiers. *Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory* 19(2). 237–269. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2021-0028.

Sansiñena, María Sol. 2017. Eliciting evidence of functional differences: The imperative versus free-standing *que*-clauses in Spanish. In Daniël Olmen & Simone Heinold (eds.), *Imperative and directive strategies*, 265–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sls.184.09san.

Stevenson, Roland C. 1956. A survey of the phonetics and grammatical structure of the Nuba Mountain languages. *Afrika und Übersee* 40: 73-115; 41: 27-65, 117–196.

Stevenson, Roland C. 2009. *Tira and Otoro: Two Kordofanian grammars*. (Ed.) Thilo C. Schadeberg. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.

van der Auwera, Johan, Nina Dobrushina & Valentin Goussev. 2004. A semantic map for imperative-hortatives. In Dominique Willems, Bart Defrancq, Timothy Colleman & Dirk Noël (eds.), 44–66. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

van der Auwera, Johan, Nina Dobrushina & Valentin Goussev. 2013. Imperative-hortative systems. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), *WALS online*. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591.