The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Language desk
< April 14	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 15

English imperatives by aspect and voice.

Hello, again!

I've been studying English conjugation patterns, and I'm now stuck on how to form the imperative mood in certain inflections. Indeed, practically every dictionary and usage commentator I've encountered just displays a list of imperatives in the active voice and simple aspect.

e.g.:

to drive

2nd person singular: drive
1st person plural: let's drive
2nd person plural: drive

But what about the passive voice, or both voices in the perfect, progressive, and perfect progressive aspects?

In the simple aspect, are the passive imperatives as follows?

e.g.:

2nd person singular: be driven
1st person plural: let's be driven
2nd person plural: be driven

What about in the progressive aspect? I already know that in the passive voice (in English) auxiliary-verb constructions simply don't exist; to wit, there is no such construction as "You will be being driven(sic)." Therefore, I imagine that, by extension, there are no passive progressive imperatives either, just active ones.

e.g.

2nd person singular: be driving
1st person plural: let's be driving
2nd person plural: be driving

Also, what of the perfect and perfect progressive aspects? Can they even form imperatives (at all) in either the active or passive voice? Namely, do such constructions such as "have driven," "let's have driven," "have been driven," "let's been have driven," "have been driving," or "let's have been driving" even exist as imperative clauses?

Also, does anybody know how this differs in other, major, Indo-European languages such as French, Spanish, Russian, German, or Portuguese? Do the imperatives in those languages span the different aspects and voices more extensively than they do in English?

--Thank you.Pine (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anything other than the non-progressive active is at all common in modern English. Instead of "Be sleeping!", the normal expression would be along the lines of "Get to sleep", and the more natural way of saying "Be killed!" would be "Go get yourself killed". AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life expressions include "Get yourself measured" (e.g. for a suit), "Get yourself organised", "Get yourself treated", etc. But there's an expression that dispenses with the "yourself" and has wider currency than any of these: Get fucked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek had a number of imperatives; from the verb λυω the present stem active imperative is λυε, the present stem mediopassive imperative is λυεο (or contracted forms thereof), the aorist stem active imperative is λυσον, the aorist stem middle imperative is λυσαι, the aorist stem passive imperative is λυθητι, and the perfect stem mediopassive imperative is λελυσο. AnonMoos (talk)

See wikt:pello#Latin: Inflection.—Wavelength (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that particular Wiktionary entry has much to say about Latin imperatives. Latin had both active and passive imperatives, and also the lengthened imperative forms with -to which were traditionally described as "future imperative" (but aren't really)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that simple passive imperatives like "be driven" and progressive imperatives like "be driving" are possible but uncommon, progressive passive imperatives like "be being driven" are stretching the language beyond what it can manage, while "have driven", "have been driven", "have been driving" etc. are completely impossible as imperatives. 86.176.209.249 (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Have been driven", "Be having been driven" and the let's forms of those are grammatical (e.g., "Let's have been driven by the right motives"), if entirely forced and unexpected. But your other suggested complex passives ("let's been have driven") are simply inconsistent and poorly thought out jumbles. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Jehovah's Witnesses translated Matthew 6:33 from Greek into English for the New World Translation, they rendered the verb ζητεῖτε as "keep on … seeking". (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001767?q=keep+on+seeking&p=par) Some other examples are "do not keep on seeking" (from Hebrew) in Jeremiah 45:5 (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000571?q=do+not+keep+on+seeking&p=par), "be transformed" in Romans 12:2 (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060048?q=be+transformed&p=par), and "be led along" in Romans 12:16 (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060070?q=be+led+along&p=par).

—Wavelength (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically "keep on seeking" seems like a simple imperative to me, just like "stop arguing" or "get moving". The imperative part is "keep" not "seeking"... 86.148.155.4 (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Similarly, in a sentence like "Be loving, gentle, and kind", you can see from the conjoined adjectives that "loving" itself is an adjective, so there's no use of a progressive imperative "Be loving!", etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could see one producing an ad for social change imploring people to "Be loving!", perhaps to implore non-hippie-types to change their world-view.Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malay/Tagalog etymology

our article Dugong and quite a few other sites and books derive the word from Malay/Tagalog, which seems to be true and fine, but they also state that the word means "lady of the sea". Now it also seems true also that in Malay mythology the animal is often viewed as a kind of mermaid or siren, but I could not locate any two etyma meaning lady+sea that come even close to du+gong. Any suggestions? --Janneman (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Merriam-Webster Collegiate says that the word comes from Malay & Tagalog duyong, meaning "sea cow". Whether that's supposed to translate the meaning of the Malay word parts or just be an equivalent English name of the beast is unclear. Deor (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the answer to the question, but I was interested to discover that the Malay word for "water" is "air"... 86.148.155.4 (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

flying sea cows?--Janneman (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

anyways, I did some more research myself today. No clue about du or gong or sea or ladies yet, but I think why Taglaog claims the word: Buffon introduced the word dugon into zoology in 1765 (Oeuvres complètes de Buffon, suivies de ses continuateurs. Th. Lejeune, Brüssel 1830. Tome IV, p. 367), and his authority is Ernst Christoph Barchewitz, who in 1730 (enlarged 2nd edition 1751) published his account about his 11 years in the Malay Archipelago. Barchewitz gives the name dugung as the name for the island on the island of Lethi, where he spent 7 years, and which Buffon identifies as Leyte (Philippines), but which is, as far as I can tell, in fact the island Leti (Indonesia). But I guess it would amount to Original Research if I wrote that down in the article...--Janneman (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dialouge writing

a dialouge writing explaining about industrial tour between two sisters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.8.10 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is impossible to understand. Looie496 (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stop making fun of people who can't defend themselves? Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

but almost lyrical. --Janneman (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a dialouge would be a two-person sled, perhaps? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

, Tony. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to be brillig enough, you slithy tove you. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gyred and gimbaled in many a wabe. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We may suppose that the query might be: "Write a dialogue between two sisters explaining an industrial tour." Which would appear to be a homework assignment? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or we may equally suppose they are asking if any of us knows of such a dialogue. And not sure why we are told the OP can't defend themselves. Sussexonian (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that noticing a funny word counts as picking on the person who said it, and I certainly had no such intent. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the humour as in good faith and good fun, and would never mind being on the receiving end. However, the hatting was also in good faith, and can be left that way, since it encourages others to stick around if they know people are careful with their feelings. Have I made everyone happy, or am I just bugging you all? IBE (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin and Cantonese reading help

Hi! What are the Mandarin and Cantonese readings of 馬漢強/马汉强? It's the name of the main character in Rumble in the Bronx.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandarin (pinyin) transliteration is Mǎ Hànqiáng. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]