# Romance languages: imperative and infinitive



## Encolpius

Hello, that kind of imperative in Italian seems to me quite unique and strange. Romance langauges, I know a little, do not use that kind of imperative. My questions are: Where is the origin of the Italian imperative? How did it develop? Are there any other forms in other dialects like "non parla!" Or is there any other Romance language using that form? Is this a new form or an ancient form? Thanks a lot.


----------



## berndf

I don't know where the use of the infinitive as an _impersonal imperative_ (i.e. not directed to a specific person or group of persons) originated. But it is not restricted to Italian. In German it is as common as in Italian ("Nicht sprechen!"). In French it is less common but it exists. You might, e.g., have seen "Ne pas affranchir" ("no stamp required") on an envelope.


----------



## Hulalessar

The infinitive as an impersonal imperative is also used in Spanish. As in French it can be found in written instructions and on signs.


----------



## Favara

Also found in Catalan: _No parlar!_


----------



## Encolpius

Well, of course that's nice, it also exists in Hungarian and in all Slavic languages but the standard form is till : Sprich nicht! etc. But it is evident it is the only version in Italian, or maybe in Catalan, I don't think so.
So I change my question: _*Why do Italians not use "non parla!"? Do they use in dialects? When has it disappeared?*_


----------



## OBrasilo

- Encolpius: In Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, there exist other forms as well.
Italian: _Non parli!_ (polite, singular), _Non parliamo!_ (in sense of _Let's not talk!_), _Non parlate!_ (plural).
Spanish: _¡No hables!_ (impolite, singular), _¡No hable!_ (polite, singular), _¡No hablemos!_, _¡No habláis!_ (plural).
Portuguese: _Não fales!_, _Não fale!_, _Não falemos!_, _Não falais!_


----------



## XiaoRoel

El imperativo latino de presente es el único que deja huellas en las lenguas romances, que están destacadas en negrita. En latín el _imperativo presente_ era: 2ª sg. *√+Vt-ø*; 2ª pl. *√+Vt-te* (√, raíz, y Vt, vocal temática, forman lo que se llama tema; las desinencias, *-ø*, cero, y *-te*, están subrayadas).
Imperativos en lenguas romances (ejemplificada en los temas en -*a*-, en negrita las formas directamente derivadas del impertaivo latino; el resto de las formas, como en latín, las suple el subjuntivo presente, de valor optativo):
1. _*Italiano*_:
a) _Imperativo presente_: 2ª sg. *ama*; 3ª sg. ami; 1ª pl. amiamo; 2ª pl. *amate*; 3ª pl. amino.
b) _Imperativo futuro_: 2ª sg. amerai; 3ª sg. amerà; 1ª pl. ameremo; 2ª pl. amerete; 3ª pl. ameranno. (Es el futuro de indicativo usado en sintaxis impresivo-expresiva, indicando el mandato con una entonación particular.)
2. _*Francés*_:
a) _Imperativo Presente_: 2ª sg. *aime*; 1ª pl. aimons; 2ª sg. *aimez*
b) _Imperativo de Pasado_: 2ª sg. aie aimé; 1ª pl. ayons aimé; 2ª pl. ayez aimé (una innovación del francés, el mandato en el pasado).
3. _*Catalán*_:
_Imperativo presente_: 2ª sg. *canta*; 3ª sg. canti/cante; 1ª pl. cantem; 2ª pl. *canteu/cantau*; 3ª pl. cantin/canten
4. *Español*:
_Imperativo presente_: 2ª sg. *ama*/amá; 3ª sg. ame; 1ª pl. amemos; 2ª pl. *amad*/amen; 3ª pl. amen.
5. *Galego*: 
_Imperativo presente_: 2ª sg. *ama*; 3ª sg. ame; 1ª pl. amemos; 2ª pl. *amade/amai*; 3ª pl. amen.
6. _*Portugués*_:
_Imperativo presente_: 2ª sg. *ama*; 3ª sg. ame; 1ª pl. amemos; 2ª pl. *amai*; 3ª pl. amen
7. *Rumano*:
_Imperativo presente_: 2ª sg. *cântă*; 2ª pl. *cântaƫi*. (Las otras personas las cubre el presente de indicativo)
8. _*Sardo*_:
_Imperativo presente_: 2ª sg. *canta*; 3ª sg. cantet; 1ª pl. cantemus; 2ª pl. *cantade*; 3ª pl. cantent.
En definitiva, sólo _se mantienen las dos formas latinas del presente de imperativo_, recurriendo para otras personas o tiempos del mandato al _subjuntivo_ (presente y perfecto) o al _indicativo_ (presente y futuro).
Pero es general _ya desde el latín_ usar el *infinitivo presente* para dar órdenes en plural.


----------



## Ayazid

Ragazzi, I think that Encolpius is simply asking why in Italian the form of the second person negative imperative is _non_ + infinitive, and not for example _no_ + subjunctive like in Spanish or a simple _non parla!_ (indicative of imperative) as in many other languages (including Czech).

Having said that I have to admit that I don't know... any thoughts?


----------



## Encolpius

Ayazid said:


> Ragazzi, I think that Encolpius is simply asking why in Italian the form of the second person negative imperative is _non_ + infinitive, and not for example _no_ + subjunctive like in Spanish or a simple _non parla!_ (indicative of imperative) as in many other languages (including Czech).
> 
> Having said that I have to admit that I don't know... any thoughts?



Finally, the first ragazzo who understood what I mean. 

I must disagree with Xiaoroel at one point which makes it all even more complicated. Italian does not use subjunctive in 2nd person singular negative only, but in 2nd person plural as well. By the way, the problem is about negative forms. 
There would be some logic. 

Negative imperative is made up of the subjunctive (I am not sure about Latin , I forgot)

Spanish: 

que tú cantes > no cantes!
que él cante > no cante!

what would happen in Italian? 

che tu canti > non cant*i*!
che lui canti > non cant*i*!

so, I'd understand Italians just wanted to avoid ambiguity. So they choose the infinite form, but why then have they choose this:  voi cantate > *Cantate!* > *Non cantate!* (and no subjunctive: Non cantiate!) therefore I think it would be logical to say: *Non canta!* just like non cantate! and maybe there are still some dialects which use my form. 
well, it is still a mystery.  For me. And since this is an etymology forum I am more interested about the past than the current situation in Romance langauges.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Creo que, por problemas de idioma no nos hemos entendido. 
Decía en mi mensaje que las _formas imperativas__, negativas o positivas_, que no sean de las _dos_ _heredadas_ del latín, como ya sucedía en latín  eran _tiempos de subjuntivo_ (generalmente el _presente_) o de _indicativo_ (_presente_ en rumano), especialmente el _futuro_. También las segundas personas heredadas del latín pueden ser sustituidas. 
Para el _plural_ imperativo, negativo o positivo, *se suele usar el infinitivo*, proceso que se dio siempre en latín en la lengua oral y es fenómeno atestado con especial intensidad en el latín arcaico y vulgar.
*Lo que siempre marca al imperativo* tanto el _propio heredado_ (las segundas personas del imp. pres. latino), como las _formas habilitadas_, sea en _positivo_ o en _negativo_, es la especial *entonación impresivo-expresiva*, que en la escritura marcamos con */!/* o con* /¡-!/* (español).


----------



## berndf

I think Encolpius' question is exclusively about the imperative of the 2nd person present. Plural, formal or future forms are irrelevant to the question.

First of all, I don't think Italian ever stopped using the imperative in negative sentences. It wasn't used in Latin either. Latin use "ne"+subjunctive for negative commands, this form was sometimes called "prohibitive". It is not uncommon that the imperative is reserved for positive sentences. You find this in very different languages. E.g. Biblical Hebrew used "lo" ("no", "not") + jussive to formulate negative commands, i.e. "lo tirzaH"="no thou-shalt-kill". In IE languages, the jussive is usually expressed using the subjunctive.


----------



## Encolpius

berndf said:


> I think Encolpius' question is exclusively about the imperative of the 2nd person present. Plural, formal or future forms are irrelevant to the question....



Exactly.


----------



## Hulalessar

berndf said:


> Latin use "ne"+subjunctive for negative commands, this form was sometimes called "prohibitive".



It also used the form: noli(te) + infinitive.


----------



## berndf

Hulalessar said:


> It also used the form: noli(te) + infinitive.


Like in Cato's _Nolite existumare maiores nostros armis rem publicam ex parva magnam fecisse_? But isn't this an impersonal imperative as we know it in other languages?


----------



## Montesacro

Encolpius said:


> so, I'd understand Italians just wanted to avoid ambiguity. So they choose the infinite form, but why then have they choose this:  voi cantate > *Cantate!* > *Non cantate!* (and no subjunctive: Non cantiate!) therefore I think it would be logical to say: *Non canta!* just like non cantate! and maybe there are still some dialects which use my form.
> well, it is still a mystery.  For me.



In Italian the second person singular of the negative imperative has always been constructed using _non_ + _infinitive_.
I mean, no development ever occurred in the last 800 - 1000 years from _non + subjunctive_ (or from the weird _non + affirmative imperative_ ) to _non + infinitive_.

In Italy the _non + infinitive_ form came to be used very early, when some kind of "corrupted" common Latin was still spoken, because  to my knowledge all dialects (or languages, if you prefer) from north to south show this feature.


----------



## vlaparakob_italiurad

Hi Encolpius! I'm from Brescia (northern Italy, I live on the Garda Lake) and in my dialect when using the negative imperative we say: verb at second person imperative + mìa. Actually in bresciano (my dialect) the negation always follows the verb or the ausiliar in coumpound tenses and so happens also in the negative imperative.

Ex.:

Don't eat! > Màia mìa! (màia 2p.s. of imperative negative from the verb _maià_ "to eat"; mìa negation)
Dont' shout! > ùsa mìa! (ùsa from the verb _usà_ "to shout")
*Non parlare!* > pàrla mìa! (from the verb _parlà_ to speak/talk)

The the second person singular of those verbs, in presente indicative, would be: màiet; ùset; pàrlet


Ps: mind the accent!


----------



## Encolpius

Salve vlaparakob_italiurad! Il tuo commento è molto interessante. Molte grazie.


----------



## vlaparakob_italiurad

Szivesen, Encolpius!


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

vlaparakob_italiurad said:


> Hi Encolpius! I'm from Brescia (northern Italy, I live on the Garda Lake) and in my dialect when using the negative imperative we say: verb at second person imperative + mìa. Actually in bresciano (my dialect) the negation always follows the verb or the ausiliar in coumpound tenses and so happens also in the negative imperative.
> 
> Ex.:
> 
> Don't eat! > Màia mìa! (màia 2p.s. of imperative negative from the verb _maià_ "to eat"; mìa negation)
> Dont' shout! > ùsa mìa! (ùsa from the verb _usà_ "to shout")
> *Non parlare!* > pàrla mìa! (from the verb _parlà_ to speak/talk)
> 
> The the second person singular of those verbs, in presente indicative, would be: màiet; ùset; pàrlet
> 
> 
> Ps: mind the accent!



Am I right in associating "mìa" to standard Italian "mica"? As for all I know, "mica" is related to French "miette" and Spanish "miga", "migaja" = "briciola" in standard Italian and "crumb" in English.
Then it's really avoiding the negative form.

The plural accent on the first syllable sounds strange to me, but then it's perhaps a distinctive feature of the Northern Italian dialects.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Encolpius said:


> Finally, the first ragazzo who understood what I mean.
> 
> I must disagree with Xiaoroel at one point which makes it all even more complicated. Italian does not use subjunctive in 2nd person singular negative only, but in 2nd person plural as well. By the way, the problem is about negative forms.
> There would be some logic.
> 
> Negative imperative is made up of the subjunctive (I am not sure about Latin , I forgot)
> 
> Spanish:
> 
> que tú cantes > no cantes!
> que él cante > no cante!
> 
> what would happen in Italian?
> 
> che tu canti > non cant*i*!
> che lui canti > non cant*i*!
> 
> so, I'd understand Italians just wanted to avoid ambiguity. So they choose the infinite form, but why then have they choose this:  voi cantate > *Cantate!* > *Non cantate!* (and no subjunctive: Non cantiate!) therefore I think it would be logical to say: *Non canta!* just like non cantate! and maybe there are still some dialects which use my form.
> well, it is still a mystery.  For me. And since this is an etymology forum I am more interested about the past than the current situation in Romance langauges.



First, the "a" desinence isn't that closely associated with subjunctive. The proof: some "illiterate" _congiuntivo_ forms like "vadi" and "venghi" - for the second person singular!

If you know something about the classification of the Romance languages, you will notice that all the languages which have been presented here by XiaoRoel are Western Romance languages. One of the principal differences: the Western Romance languages have - at least in writing - retained the something like the second person from "-as" or "es" (V+C, where the vowel is usually the stem vowel (a, e, i - the last one only in French). French is a little bit particular on this point due to extreme vowel reduction, but it's still related. 

Italian belongs to the Eastern Romance languages and has not retained the "V+C" morpheme. Italian in general likes open sillables and here we are with a single ending in the second person singular for all three conjugations: i (and -iamo" instead of "-amo", "-emo", "-imo" for the 1st person plural, and that's even in some degree related to what I'm pointing at: the impossibility to distinguish between indicative and conjunctive).
The possibility to use the subjunctive mood for the negative imperative in most of the Western Romance languages is retained because you have this difference - "-"-as"/"-es". In French, this possibility - in the second person - is retained only for "être" and "avoir", in all the other you have the imperative in both positive and negative exhortations.
In modern Italian, it just doesn' work: o-, i, -a for the "-are" verbs in the singular, "-i, -i, -i" for the conjunctive mood. I say "modern Italian" because in older literature you also find "-e".
The "-a" ending has two morphological meanings: 2nd person imperative and 3rd person indicative. The negative imperative form "non canta", as proposed by you, Encolpius, is already heavily laden semantically and ambiguous in both person and mood: either 2nd person singular positive imperative or 3rd person indicative. If you just say "non canta" then it isn't even clear whether you are exhorting a person to do something ("not to sing") or whether you are stating a fact (someone doesn't sing or isn't singing just now).
So a distinct form was required to retain the difference between positive and negative imperative - and indicative - for the second person singular, and here, I suppose, the infinitive just came fine.

By the way, although the indicative "-ate", "ete", "ite" forms do well for the imperative positive and negative, sometimes Italians use the conjunctive forms: "non crediate", "non parliate".
I have heard my Italian teacher at university speak so. She was from Apulia.
Technically, this isn't standard language and isn't taught in most of grammar books, but it's part of the living language and used at least with some verbs.

UPD: The negative imperative with subjunctive forms in the second person plural appears to be older than I thought and is used even in the bible, if my Google research aren't false. Perhaps this form is a rudiment of the common Latin inheritance which survives only in the spoken language.


----------



## Encolpius

Angelo di fuoco said:


> ... By the way, although the indicative "-ate", "ete", "ite" forms do well for the imperative positive and negative, sometimes Italians use the conjunctive forms: "non crediate", "non parliate".
> I have heard my Italian teacher at university speak so. She was from Apulia.
> Technically, this isn't standard language and isn't taught in most of grammar books, but it's part of the living language and used at least with some verbs.



very interesting info, especially that one. Grazie!


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Encolpius said:


> very interesting info, especially that one. Grazie!



I've updated my last message.


----------



## vlaparakob_italiurad

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Am I right in associating "mìa" to standard Italian "mica"?



You're perfectly right! 



Angelo di fuoco said:


> Then it's really avoiding the negative form.



Sorry, it's my fault, I don't understand what you mean...


----------



## Encolpius

And what do you think about this book
OK, written in 1835, but actually it is only the 19th century
the page 19 says:

Negative inflection

imperative
present tense

*non ama tu* = love not thou
non ami egli = let him not love
...


----------



## jazyk

Romanian is like Italian: nu vorbi. Nu - not, vorbi - to speak in the infinitive.


----------



## Encolpius

ajo fresco said:


> Hello Encolpius,
> 
> Spanish also uses No + infinitive, especially on signs and general announcements.
> 
> For example: No fumar (No smoking)



As stated above many languages can use no+infinitive, but that is not the point.


----------



## franz rod

> By the way, although the indicative "-ate", "ete", "ite" forms do well for the imperative positive and negative, sometimes Italians use the conjunctive forms: "non crediate", "non parliate".
> I have heard my Italian teacher at university speak so. She was from Apulia.
> Technically, this isn't standard language and isn't taught in most of grammar books, but it's part of the living language and used at least with some verbs.



It's standard language, but it's not a "real" imperative. If you say "non credete" it means "you (plural) don't have to believe", if you say "non crediate che..." means something like "it's better for you not to believe that...".


----------



## Encolpius

franz rod said:


> It's standard language, but it's not a "real" imperative. If you say "non credete" it means "you (plural) don't have to believe", if you say "non crediate che..." means something like "it's better for you not to believe that...".



Very interesting comment indeed!


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Encolpius said:


> And what do you think about this book
> OK, written in 1835, but actually it is only the 19th century
> the page 19 says:
> 
> Negative inflection
> 
> imperative
> present tense
> 
> *non ama tu* = love not thou
> non ami egli = let him not love
> ...



Terribly obsolete, I think even in the 19th century...


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

vlaparakob_italiurad said:


> You're perfectly right!
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo di fuoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's really avoiding the negative form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's my fault, I don't understand what you mean...
Click to expand...


Avoiding the negative imperative not semantically, but morphologically.


----------



## Encolpius

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Terribly obsolete, I think even in the 19th century...



Obsolete or not, but it was the reality. It was Italian. And since it is a general rule dialects tend to keep some archaic, obsolete forms I bet some dialects will still use it. I cannot check it now, but soon will.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

The book was published in the 19th century, but such forms, as for all I know, didn't appear then even in poetry and opera libretti, which up to the 20th century tended to use very archaic language. This book uses even the extremely archaic plural pronoun "eglino".


----------



## Encolpius

Angelo di fuoco said:


> The book was published in the 19th century, but such forms, as for all I know, didn't appear then even in poetry and opera libretti, which up to the 20th century tended to use very archaic language. This book uses even the extremely archaic plural pronoun "eglino".



...I think eglino is still used in colloquial Tuscan dialect.
Could you explain the phrase "extremely archaic" I haven't heard it.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

In the book you gave a link to they use "eglino" as regular third person plural pronoun, where a contemporary author would have used essi if he were conservative or loro if he were less conservative.
About "eglino" in Tuscany to have certainty I would have to ask a Tuscan, but unfortunately I don't know any Tuscans.


----------



## franz rod

> *non ama tu* = love not thou



I have never heard or read (also in ancient author) this form.



> I think eglino is still used in colloquial Tuscan dialect.





> In the book you gave a link to they use "eglino" as regular third person plural pronoun, where a contemporary author would have used essi if he were conservative or loro if he were less conservative.



Eglino was considered archaic also in XIX century.


----------



## Encolpius

So, if you are interested I have found a few words in a book about the Italian languages.  It says: the usage of the non+infinitive as negative imperative (known as prohibitive) dates from as early as the vulgar Latin. sometimes it is ascribed to the influence of the Latin phrase: nolli with infinitive: nolli laudare!


----------

