Bob:

I don't see the problem. Be, do, etc. are all nonfinite forms in the
imperative sentences you cite. I certainly don't assume there is any
underlying "will" or any other modal in imperatives. Negatives require a
helping verb; when none is present, "do" is inserted. Declarative and
interrogative moods trigger inflection of "do," but imperative mood does
not.

The one verb whose 2nd person (finite) form is different from its
nonfinite form is "be." "You are" vs. "to be." The fact that the command
is "Be brave" rather than "Are brave" indicates that commands take
nonfinite forms of the verb.

Dick Veit

________________________
 
Richard Veit
Department of English, UNCW
Wilmington, NC 28403-5947
910-962-3324
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of kaboyates
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Terminology

I guess this isn't such an obvious example to me.

Veit, Richard wrote:

>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>The obvious example of the nonfiniteness of imperatives is the linking
>verb: "Be brave!" (the nonfinite form), not "Are brave" (as in "You are
>brave").


If we assume the imperative in nonfinite, then how do we explain these
negatives?

Don't be brave.
Don't open the door.
Don't have the soup.

This poses problem for the "underlying" claim of will.  If will is
present, then the imperative should be

*Won't be brave.
*Won't open the door.

(I like Herb's notion that the tag question of imperative is a different
speech act.)

How do we explain the presence of "do" for the negative?  It certainly
seems that this property of the imperative follows ALL other finite
clauses without a helping verb.

You open the door.
You don't open the door.
You have the soup.
You don't have the soup.

In cases of the subjective there is no do-support.

My mother insists you be brave
My mother insists you not be brave.

Clearly, the irrealis in these sentences has no tense.

The only problem the finite explanation needs to explain is BE and not
agreement form.  This can be solved by suggesting that agreement is not
part of the imperative marker.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/