"non" in imperative
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
- Location: Japan
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:41 pm
- Location: Germany, Hesse
Re: "non" in imperative
Hi!
In Latin, negative Imperative phrases are formed either by ne+conjunctive perfect (i.e. "ne in pane vixeris") or by noli/nolite+present infinitive (i.e. "noli in pane vivere").
I was once told that one form is used when talking about a common prohibition (this would be your case) and the other one when talking about a single event, but I am not sure which one is which... sorry...
In Latin, negative Imperative phrases are formed either by ne+conjunctive perfect (i.e. "ne in pane vixeris") or by noli/nolite+present infinitive (i.e. "noli in pane vivere").
I was once told that one form is used when talking about a common prohibition (this would be your case) and the other one when talking about a single event, but I am not sure which one is which... sorry...
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
- Location: Japan
I seem to have been vague with the grammatical term "imperatve".
First, what is the difference between second person imperative and third person one?
In this quotated sentence, I guess it is prohibition. And I thought prohibiting sentence was included in imperative.
I remember it was written that future sentence can be meant as imperative.
And in the imperative sentence using the future tense there are two, second person and third person.
Do you use "ne" for both persons, for prohibition?
I feel it is somehow strange to use "ne" in the third person sentence.
Because I feel "ne" is used when the speaker is addressing the hearer directly, but when you give order to a third person you don't address the person directly.
So I guess, when it is third person, "non" would be appropreate instead of "ne".
And I want to know if you use "non" or "ne" in future imperative second person.
First, what is the difference between second person imperative and third person one?
In this quotated sentence, I guess it is prohibition. And I thought prohibiting sentence was included in imperative.
I remember it was written that future sentence can be meant as imperative.
And in the imperative sentence using the future tense there are two, second person and third person.
Do you use "ne" for both persons, for prohibition?
I feel it is somehow strange to use "ne" in the third person sentence.
Because I feel "ne" is used when the speaker is addressing the hearer directly, but when you give order to a third person you don't address the person directly.
So I guess, when it is third person, "non" would be appropreate instead of "ne".
And I want to know if you use "non" or "ne" in future imperative second person.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: Hafnia, Denmark
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
- Location: Japan
Hi timeodanaos.
Though this is a different question from what I posted above, is "nec" the same as "ne" (ne + que)? I have felt like it is "non + que" and the same as "non".
But this 'nec quae fugit sect?re nec miser vīve' is uttered directly to the hearer. So I can smoothly understand it is the same as "ne".
Though this is a different question from what I posted above, is "nec" the same as "ne" (ne + que)? I have felt like it is "non + que" and the same as "non".
But this 'nec quae fugit sect?re nec miser vīve' is uttered directly to the hearer. So I can smoothly understand it is the same as "ne".
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am
"Imperative" mode, in strictly grammatical terms, is a verb form that expresses a command.
"panem mihi da!"
Give me bread!
"noli puellam amare!"
Do not love the girl!
However, other sentences can transmit the same sense without recurring to the verb mode.
"Non in pane solo vivet homo"
Man will not live by bread alone.
"urbem condes"
You shall found the city.
The notion that one is able to make a future statement about something can be very imperative, for only those with the power to "enforce" can make such statements.
"panem mihi da!"
Give me bread!
"noli puellam amare!"
Do not love the girl!
However, other sentences can transmit the same sense without recurring to the verb mode.
"Non in pane solo vivet homo"
Man will not live by bread alone.
"urbem condes"
You shall found the city.
The notion that one is able to make a future statement about something can be very imperative, for only those with the power to "enforce" can make such statements.
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact: