Talk:Imperative mood

message: Go for it. immediate imperative mood is pretty small and should probably be here. Indeterminate (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Immediate Imperative Mood article move

message: The "English" subsection of the "Indicative and Imperative Mood" is incorrect about the word order changing in the presence of "you". "Don't you go." is an emphatic negative imperative, the negative being brought to the head of the sentence to emphasize the prohibition. "You don't go" is a normal negative imperative, and is more frequently used when the speaker and recipient are of more equal levels (compare "Don't you go in there! You understand me?" to the less emphatic "You don't go in there! Ok?" — the former speaker is assuming a more dominant role over the recipient than the speaker of the latter). Likewise, emphatic affirmative imperatives also exist such as "Go, you!" but are often avoided as it strongly assumes a dominant-submissive situation, and is generally perceived as being rude (compare this to the exclamation "Go, slave!") thus infrequently used in common situations. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The word ordering change doesn't appear to be due to the use of the imperative, but rather to the auxiliary do.  When other auxiliaries are used, such as will, must, etc.  the command uses the same word order as the indicative. Carolina wren (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

text: This also doesn't match up with the verb "to be."  We say "Don't be late," not "Be not late," or some other form, which is entirely separate from the indicative "You are not late," in which there is no do-support at all.  The prohibitive mood must, therefore, come from some entirely different source.  Where does the argument laid out here come from?  It certainly doesn't appear to come from real speaking data.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.78.17 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Indicative and Imperative Mood - English

message: Do the same rules that normally apply for choosing tu or vous apply when choosing the number of the second person imperative?  Why are the examples second person singular when plural might be more general?
e.g.  Donnez-moi rather than donne-moi 96.54.42.226 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tu-vous distinction in French 

message: Could someone add examples for ASL? I think the imperative is formed by "you (verb) you", but I'm not sure at all. Squirrelous (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign Language 

message: I find it interesting how the word "like" in the imperative mood has started out awkwardly, very much in scare quotation (e.g. Please "like" us on Facebook!) but that it seems to be becoming more accepted form. (I feel like I see Like us on Facebook with no quotation marks more often now.) Does anyone know of any literature on this topic?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:106:690E:562D:E10F:98D5 (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Like" in the subjunctive mood as a recent development 

message: The current translations of the special form described in the article lead one to conclude that there is indeed no English equivalent, but I firmly believe that it does exist as seen in the following translations (mine):
* Soyez levés demain avant huit heures. (Be up tomorrow by 8.)
* Ayez fini le travail avant qu'il (ne) fasse nuit. (Have the work done/be done the work before nightfall.)
* Aie écrit le livre demain. (Have the book written tomorrow.) ← side note: this whole line should disappear, unless you're on the cusp of finishing a book, it's not a good example of anything
* Soyez partis à midi. (Be gone by noon.)
* Ayons fini les devoirs à 6h.  ([Let's] have the homework done by 6.)
"By 8am tomorrow, I will have been up for 3 hours." ← If this can be understood just fine in English (however much underutilized), then the imperative constructions above can easily be seen as adjacent, and perfectly mappable to the French ones.
(Whether English has a term for this is another thing altogether.) ;)
(Please excuse my form, I'm new to the Talk pages.)
FuturSimple (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the last statement in Romance languages > French correct? 

message: Shouldn't the pronoun there also be mentioned ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let there be light 

message: After the French imperative part of the article it says, "In English there is no equivalent grammatical structure to form this tense of the imperative mood; it is translated in imperative mood of present with previous value" I'm a bit confused. Could you explain this? What do you mean by with previous value?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CaylMicv/Evaluate_an_Article?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_evaluate_article
CaylMicv (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: What is imperatives verb 2407:C00:D001:3994:1:2:7E72:9459 (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: So, there are several things that are wrong with the description here and neither me or the editor who added the information has any references to add about this. In the order they're mentioned:
1. The future imperative isn't only used for future commands and requests, it's also used for current requests just to make it politer than the present imperative by implying it's not a priority, you don't have to do it right away.
2. The imperative does not combine with any aspects. Here I'm going to make a distinction between morphological aspects and modal type auxiliary verbs with an aspectual function. 
Morphological aspects can only combine with tenses and moods, examples include continuous: kar rahā (hai, thā, hogā, ho, hotā), habitual: kartā (hai, thā, hogā, ho, hotā) and perfect kiyā (hai, thā, hogā, ho, hotā) among others. 
Aspectual verbs are verbs that have an aspectual meaning but can also be combined with other aspects. Examples include: rêhnā (kartā rêhtā hai, kartā rahe, kartā rahā thā) which is distinct from the rêhnā used in the continuous tense, jānā (as imperfective: kartā gayā, kartā jātā hai, kartā jā rahā ho, and as perfective: ho gayā, ho jātā hai) and lenā/denā among others.
Since the imperative does not allow any morphological aspects, aspect is expressed using these aspectual verbs, but this makes karnā different from kartā rêhnā, karne lagnā and kar denā. Kartā rêh is the imperative of kartā rêhnā, not the habitual imperative of karnā. RonnieSingh (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi-Urdu imperatives 

message: Nobody is providing a first person singular imperative form in conjugating languages, only first plural, second singular, and second plural. Does first person singular imperative not exist? For example, in English, "Focus!" said aloud to one's self, when having difficulty staying on a task. How would this be conjugated in languages that conjugate the imperative? Do speakers/thinkers use second person singular or first person plural when talking to themselves? And is there a citation for this which can be added to the article? Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First person singular imperative