# Stark and Gentle Imperatives



## Hebruce

I'm using the FSI Hebrew Language course, I am following on line and have made it to Unit #6. Now I am completely confused at Section 6.4 about Imperitive forms of Verbs, in particular how do you know when to use the "Stark" imperative and when to use the "Gentle" imperative form of the verb?


----------



## Egmont

The stark imperative is the real imperative.

What's called the "gentle imperative" is the future second person of the verb. If you translate it into English as "will (or would) you (please) ...," you won't be far off. It's a polite way to phrase a request, but it's not really an imperative form.


----------



## ks20495

I have to say that the situation is a lot more complicated than that. That's because, in the binyanim הפעיל and התפעל, the 'official' imperative is NEVER used in colloquial speech. In those binyanim, the second person future doubles as an imperative whose starkness/gentleness is dependent solely on tone.


----------



## Egmont

ks20495 said:


> I have to say that the situation is a lot more complicated than that. That's because, in the binyanim הפעיל and התפעל, the 'official' imperative is NEVER used in colloquial speech. In those binyanim, the second person future doubles as an imperative whose starkness/gentleness is dependent solely on tone.


A valid point. I oversimplified a bit.


----------



## Omerik

ks20495 said:


> I have to say that the situation is a lot more complicated than that. That's because, in the binyanim הפעיל and התפעל, the 'official' imperative is NEVER used in colloquial speech. In those binyanim, the second person future doubles as an imperative whose starkness/gentleness is dependent solely on tone.


It's even more complicated than that 

1. I wouldn't say that the second person form is more polite. It's sometimes the exact opposite, since it's not "official".



2. In the binyan נפעל the "official" imperative is also not used.
It could be either the second person future, or a "new" Israeli form that resembles the "official" imperative of binyan פיעל.

Example:
he entered - הוא נכנס ((h)u nixnas)
enter! - תיכנס (tikanes) or כנס (kanes) 

A rule of thumb is that of the "official" form starts with a "hi", it's not used.



3. In the binyan התפעל, while not the most common, and somewhat more colloquial, the "ti" can be dropped as well, and an apostrophe is usually written instead of the dropped "ti" (it shows it in the wrong place when I write it here, unfortunately).

Example:
get a haircut! - תסתפר (tistaper) or 'סתפר ('staper)

Two more common examples:
look! - תסתכל (tistakel) or 'סתכל ('stakel)
Turn around! - תסתובב (tistovev) or 'סתובב ('stovev)



4. In the binyan פיעל the imperative may change form in everyday speech.

turn (something) off! - כבה, pronounced either [kabe] or [xabe]

Notice that some verbs don't even change as they "should" in the future form.
I will turn (something) off - אכבה - could be [ekabe] or [exabe]
I will gather (something/someone) - אכנס - only [ekanes]

Therefor, it will never be:
gather! - כנס as [xanes], but only [kanes]

In some forms it's even the opposite of what "should" be.
to star - לככב is pronounced [lekaxev] and not [lexakev]

It seems unpredictable, but you should take that in account, as you might notice these irregular forms in spoken language.


----------



## Carrot Ironfoundersson

> In some forms it's even the opposite of what "should" be.
> to star - לככב is pronounced [lekaxev] and not [lexakev]



Yaron London would disagree with you


----------



## Carrot Ironfoundersson

מעניין למה דווקא "כ" זכתה ל"כבוד" הזה... הרי אף אחד לא יגיד לפּזר או לבּדר... 1


----------



## utopia

Omerik said:


> It's even more complicated than that
> 
> 1. I wouldn't say that the second person form is more polite. It's sometimes the exact opposite, since it's not "official".
> 
> 
> 
> 2. In the binyan נפעל the "official" imperative is also not used.
> It could be either the second person future, or a "new" Israeli form that resembles the "official" imperative of binyan פיעל.
> 
> Example:
> he entered - הוא נכנס ((h)u nixnas)
> enter! - תיכנס (tikanes) or כנס (kanes)
> 
> A rule of thumb is that of the "official" form starts with a "hi", it's not used.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. In the binyan התפעל, while not the most common, and somewhat more colloquial, the "ti" can be dropped as well, and an apostrophe is usually written instead of the dropped "ti" (it shows it in the wrong place when I write it here, unfortunately).
> 
> Example:
> get a haircut! - תסתפר (tistaper) or 'סתפר ('staper)
> 
> Two more common examples:
> look! - תסתכל (tistakel) or 'סתכל ('stakel)
> Turn around! - תסתובב (tistovev) or 'סתובב ('stovev)
> 
> 
> 
> 4. In the binyan פיעל the imperative may change form in everyday speech.
> 
> turn (something) off! - כבה, pronounced either [kabe] or [xabe]
> 
> Notice that some verbs don't even change as they "should" in the future form.
> I will turn (something) off - אכבה - could be [ekabe] or [exabe]
> I will gather (something/someone) - אכנס - only [ekanes]
> 
> Therefor, it will never be:
> gather! - כנס as [xanes], but only [kanes]
> 
> In some forms it's even the opposite of what "should" be.
> to star - לככב is pronounced [lekaxev] and not [lexakev]
> 
> It seems unpredictable, but you should take that in account, as you might notice these irregular forms in spoken language.


 
The official imperative in binyan NIFAL is still HIPAEL, but it's rarely used. The KANES form is the only one that I know built in this way.

All the others are in the future form, as I know.


As for the forms in PIEL, the future first person is AKHANES, AKHABE which means that posters here use it differently. Well, in a conversation, I guess, it will be quite clear.

The direvative forms - those forms whose three root consonants derive from a lexeme (a word) - in PIEL, PUAL, HITPAEL don't behave in the same manner as the usual verbs. Thus KOKHAV - a star - gives us the three consonants: K, KH, V, and it's put in the PIEL as KIKHEV, MEKAKHEV etc...

SHAFAN -  a bunny, cony (a coward), gives us SH, F, N which in the HITPAEL is HISHTAFEN ( and not HISHTAPEN).

So that's the way speakers do it, usually, without the consent of the Hebrww Language Academy, of course.


----------



## Hebruce

Thank you all so much for your input and for any more input that will be welcome.

I've been going over these posts and saying to myself..."uh oh, what did I get myself into by trying to learn this language". 

So I'll try to understand this as best I can and continue on. Hopefully, as I learn more it will become clearer and clearer. Mostly with this particular stumbling block, the problem will be recognizing all the different words in their different forms. 

Once again tho...Toda Raba.


----------



## ks20495

> I've been going over these posts and saying to myself..."uh oh, what did I get myself into by trying to learn this language".



The stuff that's been discussed here is very advanced and has a lot to do with the disparity between the 'official', technical imperative and the imperative that actually is used in speech. Your book (I think) tried to note that disparity through the simplified "stark" and "gentle" categories.


----------



## origumi

Hebruce said:


> I've been going over these posts and saying to myself..."uh oh, what did I get myself into by trying to learn this language".


LOL forget about it. The situation is simple. Terminology like "Stark vs. Gentle" means nothing. Reminds me of "Comodo vs. Cobra".

There's an imperative form in Hebrew. Period. Exactly one kind. However, many moderm language speakers prefer the future over imperative. When using the imperative anyway, many "amend" the standard forms incorrectly in so cosistent manner that it may be argued to be a new grammatic form (but don't spend time here). That's it. All you need to remember is that future may actually mean imperative, depending on the context.


----------



## Hebruce

Thank you everyone for your responses.  
I went away for a few days and couldn't look here but I appreciate all the responses very much.

Bruce


----------



## Omerik

utopia said:


> The official imperative in binyan NIFAL is still HIPAEL, but it's rarely used. The KANES form is the only one that I know built in this way.


I can't think of any imperatives in this binyan right now, to be honest... Usually it's passive, so I think that's why.



utopia said:


> As for the forms in PIEL, the future first person is AKHANES, AKHABE which means that posters here use it differently. Well, in a conversation, I guess, it will be quite clear.


Do you think that the "ekanes" and "ekabe" forms are not that common? I think they are, though I may be wrong.
Also, the way the people pronounce the א, meaning "a" or "e", is another interesting question...



utopia said:


> The direvative forms - those forms whose three root consonants derive from a lexeme (a word) - in PIEL, PUAL, HITPAEL don't behave in the same manner as the usual verbs. Thus KOKHAV - a star - gives us the three consonants: K, KH, V, and it's put in the PIEL as KIKHEV, MEKAKHEV etc...
> 
> SHAFAN -  a bunny, cony (a coward), gives us SH, F, N which in the HITPAEL is HISHTAFEN ( and not HISHTAPEN).
> 
> So that's the way speakers do it, usually, without the consent of the Hebrww Language Academy, of course.


What you say here makes sense. I'm not sure whether it's 100% correct, and at all times, but I think that you got an interesting point here.


----------

