Re: imperatives

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

> Of course ".e'ucai do" ".e'ocai do" might also be taken as very strong
> requests and/or exhortations, but would not be imperative in nature.

I don't know what you mean by "imperative in nature". {e'ucai do klama}
to me does not make the claim {do klama}, it doesn't say that you go,
so it is not in the indicative mood.

> >Yes, that's what I'm talking about. {e'o}, {e'u} and {ei} all are
> >useful to translate the imperative mood.
> I don't think so, unless you are talking about imperative mood usages
> from other languages that aren'e really imperatives.

I'm talking about things that in other languages use tenses from what
is called the imperative mood, whether they are commands or not.
If you like, let's call it the exhortative mood, or whatever. Something
that contrasts with the indicative.

> >How do you
> >say "let's go to your house" without turning it into "let's go to
> >our house"?  I would just say {e'u mi'o klama le do zdani}.
>
> That would get the point across without actually using an imperative
> mood.  Especially since I have trouble thinking of most usages of
> "let's" as being all that imperative.

It doesn't matter what we call it. That sentence does not claim that
we go, that's all. It's in the other-than-indicative mood.

> But if you insist on a imperative

Not at all. I'm the one who is saying that {ko} is not essential.
I certainly don't want to use it for {mi'o}.

> you can "doimi'o ko doido'u". The
> latter phrase could be replaced by "da'o" if you had no other pro-sumti
> to avoid resetting.  We could probably adopt by convention "ko goi/po'u
> mi'o" as much shorter ways to do imperative "let's".

I don't need it. I'm quite happy with {e'u mi'o}, {e'o mi'o}, {ei mi'o}.

Jorge