> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 22:25:38 +0200
> From: tsela.cg@...
> Subject: Re: Something for we to discuss!
> To: CONLANG@...
> On 5 July 2013 22:08, Tony Harris tony@...> wrote:
> This would be sort of like saying it this way in French: Il a quelque
> > chose que je fasse,
> That's not correct French.
I think that's rather beside his point. He said (emphases mine):
> > This would be *_sort of like_ saying it this way* in French: Il a quelque
> > chose que je fasse,
He is using (Romance hypothetical) analogy to explain the mechanism of the Alurhsa sentence. In that light:
> > I think I would do this in Alurhsa as "that" (conj.) + imperative.
> > So for example "He has something for me to do" would be "Xô ńólyësán el
> > kelyáy" (he-has something[ACC] that I-do[IMPER]).
> That's weird. It's weird enough to have an imperative for the first person
> (but then maybe it's really an imperative-hortative), but an imperative in
> a subclause?! Usually the imperative mood is restricted to main clauses. In
> subclauses, it gets replaced with another mood, often something like a
I don't see it as weird at all since the imperative itself is often 'something like a subjunctive'. Tony may well correct me if I haven't quite captured the Alurhsa Weltanschauung, but here's what I guess is going on (NB: if the French goes off the plantation, it's being used *in hypothetical analogy*).
You have a lovely imperative:
Soyez à l'heure. Be on time.
You also have lovely sentences like these:
J'insiste que vous soyez à l'heure. I insist that you be on time.
Il veut que je sois à l'heure. He wants me to be on time.
So, for indirect commands, instead of saying:
Je vous ai dit d'être à l'heure. I told you to be on time.
Il m'a dit d'être à l'heure. He told me to be on time.
why not, by extension/analogy, say:
J'ai dit que vous soyez à l'heure. (Dixi ut essetis...)
Il a dit que je sois à l'heure. (Dixit ut essem...)
and use your imperative forms? As such, the imperative will be available in all persons. (Géarthnuns does this here.) That gets you to:
Il a dit que je fasse quelque chose.
Now, you also have:
Je veux inventer quelque chose (qui soit) facile à employer.
Je veux inventer quelque chose qui fasse une difference.
Would it be such a big reach to say that Alurhsa kinda conflates these to get:
Il a quelque chose que je fasse.
in its imperative? (Géarthnuns does not do this.) Now Hungarian has an *imperative* (felszólító mód) that conjugates for all persons, can be used in subordinate clauses, and - surprise, surprise - covers some areas we normally associate with subjunctives, all explained from the Hungarian perspective (at least in some books), like in Alurhsa, as "'that' (conj.) + imperative". Now one can argue that they *call* it an imperative but it's *really* an imperative-hortative or that it's a subjunctive that slums it on the imperative corner once in a while (as seems to be the case with French "soyez", "ayez", and "sachez"). But the "gee-wouldn't-it-be-nice(or, at least, better for you)-if-this-happened" mood gets carved up lots of ways, so saying something is a subjunctive is being used imperatively or an imperative being used subjunctivally seems to me rather a game of inches dependent on the cultural/grammatically explanatory traditions of a given language. One shouldn't blanch hearing tell of an imperative in the third person or popping up in a subordinate clause. At the very least: > From: tony@...
>Weird, maybe. But it "feels" correct In Alurhsa, and after all that's all that matters (at least to me).