Nivkh (isolate), Japanese (Japanese-Ryukyuan), Dogon (Gur, Niger-Congo) distinguish the category of person in the imperative mood, and do not do so in the indicative mood (V. S. Xrakovskij, personal communication)Additionally, Klamath (Klamath-Modoc (=Lutuamian)), Lezgian (East Caucasian), Mongolian (Altaic) make person-number distinction in imperative but not in indicative mood (Birjulin & Xrakovskij 1992: 31)
1. Xrakovskij & Volodin state this implication the other way round (#676): If there is person-number distinction in the forms of the indicative, the same distinction will be in the forms of the imperative.2. Cf. ##433, 434 for the distribution of voice, aspect, and tense distinctions between indicative and non-indicative moods.
1. Xrakovskij & Volodin state this implication the other way round (#676): If there is person-number distinction in the forms of the indicative, the same distinction will be in the forms of the imperative.2. Cf. ##433, 434 for the distribution of voice, aspect, and tense distinctions between indicative and non-indicative moods.