Print

Print


Is there any particular reason why the imperative can't be used with the first and third persons?

Sam Stutter
[log in to unmask]
"No e na il cu barri"



On 24 Jan 2012, at 19:47, MorphemeAddict wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> 
>>> --- On Mon, 1/23/12, Ian Spolarich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> At this point, I came across the construction "I am to
>>>> sing." This is a
>>>> curious construction, I think, and it appears occasionally
>>>> in things like
>>>> "he is to speak at the benefit," or something.
>>> 
>>> Strange to say, but it looks like an ordinary supine to me. I think this
>>> would answer to the first supine in Latin: venit in curia oratum sort of
>>> thing. Dunno if they had benefits in those days...
>>> 
>>>> -Ian
>>>> 
>>>> Also--what is the technical term for this construction?
>>> 
>>> Padraic
>>> 
>> 
>> One thing that strikes me about this construction (the English one) is
>> that it can act like an imperative, but filtered through a 3rd party. E.g.
>> "They are to be in bed by 8:00" basically means "Tell them to be in bed by
>> 8:00".
>> 
> 
> Even stronger than that: "Put them to bed by 8:00." And then the imperative
> isn't to the ones going to bed at all.
> 
> stevo
> 
>> 
>> I think the Latin gerund is similar in expressing either futurity or
>> expectation or obligation, right? E.g. _addendum_ "thing which will be
>> added"; _memorandum_ "thing which should be remembered"; _Delenda est!_ "It
>> must be destroyed!"
>>