Universal #676

Legacy number: 676

 Number  673
 Original  If there is person-number distinction in indicative forms, the same distinction will be in imperative forms, and not vice versa.
 Standardized  IF there is person-number distinction in indicative forms, THEN there is the same distinction in imperative forms.
 Formula  (person & number) in indicative ⇒ (person & number) in imperative
 Keywords  mood, indicative, imperative, person, number
 Domain  inflection
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  absolute
 Basis  about 130 languages mainly from the former USSR
 Source  Xrakovskij & Volodin 1986: 87, also cited in Birjulin & Xrakovskij 1992: 31

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Notes
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.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
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 (<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=273"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">) 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.