1. There are languages, e.g. Nivkh (isolate), Klamath (Klamath-Modoc (=Lutuamian)), Lezgian (East Caucasian), Mongolian (Altaic), Japanese (Japanese-Ryukyuan), which have person-number distinction in the imperative but not in indicative forms. But there are no languages which have person-number distinction in the indicative but not in imperative forms (Birjulin & Xrakovskij 1992: 31). 2. Uspensky (#273) makes an opposite claim: If there is a certain person or number distinction in the forms of a non-indicative mood, there will be the same distinction in indicative mood.
1. There are languages, e.g. Nivkh (isolate), Klamath (Klamath-Modoc (=Lutuamian)), Lezgian (East Caucasian), Mongolian (Altaic), Japanese (Japanese-Ryukyuan), which have person-number distinction in the imperative but not in indicative forms. But there are no languages which have person-number distinction in the indicative but not in imperative forms (Birjulin & Xrakovskij 1992: 31). 2. Uspensky (#273) makes an opposite claim: If there is a certain person or number distinction in the forms of a non-indicative mood, there will be the same distinction in indicative mood.