# The negative imperative in Romance languages



## francisgranada

Hello. 

In Spanish the negative imperative is formed by the subjunctive of the verb (_no ames, no ame, no amemos, no améis, no amen_), while  in Italian it is only partially true as the 2nd pers. sg. uses the infinitive (_non amare_) and in the 2nd pers. pl. the verbal form of the "positive" imperative is used (_non amate_).

As far as I know, the Spanish corresponds better to the Latin usage. So my "initial" questions are the following:

1. Why these innovations in Italian? 
2. Is the Italian 2nd pers.sg. influenced by the Latin "_noli amare" _ (lit. _[do] not want to love!_)?
3. Are there other Romance  (including regional) languages where the negative imperative is not formed using the subjunctive/conjunctive (in some persons)?
4. What is supposed to be the "situation" in the early Romance/vulgar Latin?

Thanks in anvadce!


----------



## Nino83

As far as I know, in (contemporary) Sicilian language the negative imperative for the second person singular is equal to the Italian one). In French it is equal to the indicative mood while in Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan is equal to the subjunctive mood. 

Note that in Portuguese the infinitive mood is often used instead of the imperative (second singular, positive form).


----------



## fdb

....and Romanian agrees with Italian (negation + infinitive).


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> As far as I know, in (contemporary) Sicilian language the negative imperative for the second person singular is equal to the Italian one ...


The second pers. plural in Sicilian I imagine something like _"nun amati!"_ . Am I right  ? ...  
Is there a difference between the imperative and conjuctive 2nd pers. pl. in Sicilian ? (as in case of _amate <> amiate_).


----------



## francisgranada

fdb said:


> ....and Romanian agrees with Italian (negation + infinitive).


This is interesting (for me). How are the negative imperatives formed in other persons, especially in the 2nd plural? Can you give some example?


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> The second pers. plural in Sicilian I imagine something like _"nun amati!"_ . Am I right  ? ...
> Is there a difference between the imperative and conjuctive 2nd pers. pl. in Sicilian ? (as in case of _amate <> amiate_).



Sicilian language doesn't have a real present subjunctive (there is the imperfect subjunctive and the conditional mood). It is equal to the present indicative.

The infinitive mood, instead of the second singular person of the imperative mood (positive, affirmative form), is used also in Italian when one is explaining a procedure (for example in cooking, recipes, _tagliare la cipolla a dadini, metterla in padella a rosolare. Dopo due minuti aggiungere i pomodori..._). In Portuguese it happens more often. 

 In Sicilian: _non annari! (non andare!) non annati! (non andate!)_. 

EDIT: also in Spanish there is this use: http://www.rae.es/consultas/infinitivo-por-imperativo 

I think that the Italian and Romanian structure could be derive from this usage. 

For example in signs:

_Depositar la basura en el contenedor_. (Spanish)
_Gettare la spazzatura nel cassonetto._ (Italian) 
_Non gettare la spazzatura fuori dal cassonetto._ (Italian) 
_No fumar._ (Spanish) 
_Non fumare._ (Italian)


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ... The infinitive mood, instead of the second singular person of the imperative mood (positive, affirmative form), is used also in Italian when one is explaining a procedure (for example in cooking, recipes, _tagliare la cipolla a dadini, metterla in padella a rosolare. Dopo due minuti aggiungere i pomodori..._)...


Yes, but until it is not really grammaticalized, this can be explained by avoiding the usage of the direct imperative verbal forms in some cases/situations. This happens also in other languages (including my mother tongue).


----------



## Nino83

The Real Academia's article says that you can use the infinitive mood to give orders (but only for 2nd person singular, not plural). 
Italian and Romanian structure (negation + infinitive) is only for the 2nd person singular. 
It could be that this usage was grammaticalized in Italian and Romanian, for the negative form (and for the positive form in some situations) but it wasn't so in Western Romance languages. 

I'm not sure but there is some coincidence.


----------



## francisgranada

Ok. Turning back to my original questions, it seems that we don't necessarily need the possible inlfuence of Latin constructions like "_noli/nolite + infinitive_", because the infinitive _itself _can be "naturally" used in function of imperative in many languages. 

So the _grammaticalization _of the infinitive in Italian (2nd pers. sg.) is perhaps due to the fact that the 2nd pers. sg. subjunctive is _too ambiguous_.  E.g. _non ami!, non tema!, non venga! _... can be understood/interpreted in many ways, while the meaning of the Spanish _no ames!, no temas!, no vengas! ... _is unambiguous.

P.S. I don't know if this "logic" is appliable also for the Romanian ...


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Ok. So turning back to my original questions, it seems that we don't necessarily need the possible inlfuence of Latin constructions like "_noli/nolite + infinitive_", because the infinitive _itself _can be "naturally" used in function of imperative in many languages.



It could be that _noli + infinitive_ influenced this construction too but why only the second singular person? (I don't know why). 



francisgranada said:


> So the _grammaticalization _of the infinitive in Italian (2nd pers. sg.) is probably due to the fact that the 2nd pers. sg. subjunctive is _too ambiguous_.  E.g. _non ami!, non tema!, non venga! _... can be understood/interpreted in many ways, while the meaning of the Spanish _no ames!, no temas!, no vengas! ... _is unambiguous.



In Italian _non ami! non tema! non venga!_ is the polite form (_Lei_), while _non amare! non temere! non venire!_ is informal _(tu)_. 
Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan use subjunctive both for the polite and the informal form. 
It could be also that in Italian the 2nd pers. sing. of the present subjunctive is equal to the 3rd pers. sing. _(che tu canti, che egli canti_, in Spanish and Portuguese _que tu cantes, que él/ele cante_ while in Romanian the 2nd pers. sing. of the present subjunctive is equal to the 2nd pers. sing. of the present indicative), so the two forms (polite and informal) would have been identic. 

Italian and Romanian lost final _-s_ during the Roman Empire while French lost final _-s_ only a few centuries ago, so negative imperative was just formed. Now, in French, negative imperative is equal to indicative but in French we can distinguish informal and polite forms because the distinction is between _tu_ and _vous_ (and not between _tu_ and _Lei_ or _tu_ and _usted/o senhor_). 

So Italian and Romanian chose the infinitive for the informal form. Infinitive can be used in some situations instead of the 2nd sing. pers. of the imperative mood so, maybe, this was the most immediate choice. 

These are only speculations. All in my (humble) opinion. 

Ciao


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> It could be that _noli + infinitive_ influenced this construction too but why only the second singular person? (I don't know why).



According  to the RAE article Francisgranada linked to, the infinitive is also  used for the 2nd person plural imperative in colloquial language. The  prohibition against 2pl. usage sounds to me like a semi-arbitrary  prescriptive rule, perhaps due to the habits/preferences of certain  influential Spanish speakers at some point in history.

 By the way, wasn't *nōlītō/nōluntō *the original Latin formation for 3rd person negative imperatives? (I.e., _nōlītō_ + (infinitive) "Let him not (verb)" and _nōlunt__ō _+ (inf.) "Let them not (verb)".) For the 1pl. imperative, I don't know if there was any exclusive construction, but I seem to recall that *non est *(_face*ndum*_)  -- i.e., _non est_ plus the neuter future passive participle of the verb in question  -- was one way of expressing the meaning "Let us not ...".


----------



## Nino83

Yes, RAE article I linked to, says that the infinitive is also used for the 2nd pers. plur. imperative but the question is why in Italian and Romanian (and not in Spanish) this form (negation + infinitive) was chosen. 
I'm reading that the polite form _lei, usted, você_ were introduced in XIV century so my theory doesn't seem to be plausible, unless this form (negation + infinitive) is not older than the introduction of _lei_.


----------



## Nino83

In this article http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/imperativo_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/ (in italiano) is said that there were four forms in Latin: 
a) ne + present subjunctive b) ne + future imperative c) noli/nolite + infinitive d) ne + perfect subjunctive (or future perfect). 

The b) fell into disuse, Spanish and Portuguese (and Catalan) followed the a) while Italian, Romanian and Old French followed the d). 
_Amaverim, is, it_ lost _ve_ and _im, is, it_ became _e_, so _amare_ (perfect subjunctive) = _amare_ (infinitive), so Italians and Romanian perceive _non amare_ as _negation + infinitive_. 
This was so for the first and fourth conjugations (but the second and the third were regularized). 

This structure was just present during VI-IX century (iscrizione della catacomba di Commodilla: _non dicere ille secreta a bboce_). 

In Italian there were also other forms, as in Manzoni (in Parini, _Ma tu non pensa_, similar to the French form). 

So it depends on phonetic changes and on different grammatical choices (the d) form instead of the a) form. 

Ciao


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> In this article http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/imperativo_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/ (in italiano) is said that there were four forms in Latin:
> a) ne + present subjunctive b) ne + future imperative c) noli/nolite + infinitive d) ne + perfect subjunctive (or future perfect).
> 
> The b) fell into disuse, Spanish and Portuguese (and Catalan) followed the a) while Italian, Romanian and Old French followed the d).
> _Amaverim, is, it_ lost _ve_ and _im, is, it_ became _e_, so _amare_ (perfect subjunctive) = _amare_ (infinitive), so Italians and Romanian perceive _non amare_ as _negation + infinitive_.



If I understood correctly, a form like _Non parlare_ "Don't talk" is only meant to be used for the 2nd singular. Do you ever hear Italian speakers use _non parlare_ for the 2nd plural imperative as well, even if it's not formally correct?

By the way, I think we may have both misunderstood the Spanish rule about infinitive-imperatives. The RAE article you linked to says



> Solo es válido el empleo del infinitivo con valor de imperativo dirigido a una segunda persona *del singular o del plural* cuando aparece precedido de la preposición a, uso propio de la lengua oral coloquial: ¡Tú, a callar!; Niños, a do[r]mir.



So it looks as though the usage of plain infinitives as imperatives isn't considered correct in Spanish, whether in the 2nd singular or plural.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> If I understood correctly, a form like _Non parlare_ "Don't talk" is only meant to be used for the 2nd singular. Do you ever hear Italian speakers use _non parlare_ for the 2nd plural imperative as well, even if it's not formally correct?



No, I don't. _Non parlare_ is exclusively singular. 
Only in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd pers. sing. Latin perfect subjunctive became equal to the infinitive mood. 



Gavril said:


> So it looks as though the usage of plain infinitives as imperatives isn't considered correct in Spanish, whether in the 2nd singular or plural.



Yes. If preceded by the preposition _a_ is correct, for example _a mangiare! (a comer!)._ 

But in some cases the imperative is utilized to give orders (for example in militar language _marciare!_ or _lavorare!_), but it isn't correct in formal language. 
It is usual in cooking when one explains a recipe or in labels.


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ... for example _a mangiare! (a comer!)._
> 
> But in some cases the imperative is utilized to give orders (for example in militar language _marciare!_ or _lavorare!_) ...
> 
> It is usual in cooking when one explains a recipe or in labels.


All these examples are possible in (some) non Romance languages as well, so I think this "cooking imperative"  is not a real grammatical imperative.


----------



## Gavril

francisgranada said:


> All these examples are possible in (some) non Romance languages as well, so I think this "cooking imperative"  is not a real grammatical imperative.



Why is it any less grammatical than the infinitive in negative imperatives like _Non parlare_?


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> Why is it any less grammatical than the infinitive in negative imperatives like _Non parlare_?



But _non parlare_, according to_ Enciclopedia Treccani_, is not an infinitive but it derives from the Latin perfect subjunctive.


----------



## francisgranada

Gavril said:


> Why is it any less grammatical than the infinitive in (e.g.) _Non parlare_ "Don't speak"?


Because it is not really grammaticalized (in the laguages we are speaking about) in this function. E.g. (_a) dormire! _or _marciare! _is rather an impersonal "order" than an imperative. It can be addressed to one or more persons or to everybody who is present (sometimes also including the one who pronounces it) ...


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> But _non parlare_, according to_ Enciclopedia Treccani_, is not an infinitive but it derives from the Latin perfect subjunctive.



It may not be historically derived from an infinitive, but if most modern Italian speakers are not aware of this fact (which I suspect they aren't), and if the infinitive also appears in positive commands such as _Parlare!_, how can a distinction be made anymore?


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> It may not be historically derived from an infinitive, but if most modern Italian speakers are not aware of this fact (which I suspect they aren't), and if the infinitive also appears in positive commands such as _Parlare!_, how can a distinction be made anymore?



Yes, we're not aware of it but I think that imperative mood, as it is today, was established long time ago (IV-V century A.D.). 
In Italian the infinitive in positive commands is relegated to very few cases (military orders) or it is more a suggestion (as in cooking or labels) than a command. 
In Portuguese it is used more often in this way.


----------



## francisgranada

Gavril said:


> ... and if the infinitive also appears in positive commands such as _Parlare!_, how can a distinction be made anymore?


Simply: we say _Parla!  _In case of negative imperative there's no other possibility than _Non parlare!. _This is the grammaticalized form, whatever be it's origin and inspite of possible ambiguities (_non parlare _means also _not to speak_).


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ... or it is more a suggestion (as in cooking or labels) than a command...


Yes, or a "description" of what one has to do, e.g.:

_Mettere in una zuppiera il burro, il pecorino, il parmigiano, sale e pepe. Tagliare la pancetta a pezzetti e soffriggerla __... 
_
This can be interpreted also as "_Bisogna _mettere ... _Si deve_ tagliare ...."


----------



## Gavril

Incidentally, Enciclopedia Treccani claims that a certain amount of analogical  leveling occurred to create the negative imperative forms -- otherwise,  we would see forms like *_Non scrissere_ (< _non scripseris_) instead of _Non scrivere_, and *_Non dissere_ (< _non dixeris_) instead of_ Non dire_. Is there any direct evidence of the irregular perfect subjunctive forms in Italian or Romanian?

If not, then it would seem that the main evidence for the "Perfect subjunctive > Negative imperative" etymology is that _Non fare, Non parlare_ etc. are generally used for the 2nd person singular, whereas _Non fate, Non parlate_ etc. are used for the 2nd pers. plural. If forms like _Non fare_ were straightforwardly derived from the infinitive, this distribution would be harder to explain.


----------



## francisgranada

Gavril said:


> ... If forms like _Non fare_ were straightforwardly derived from the infinitive, this distribution would be harder to explain.


I agree.

Perhaps the concept of the negative imperative originally/primarilly did not even exist because "not to do something" is not an "action" that could be directly commanded or ordered (philosophically speaking ...). 

 This could explain the historical usage of the subjunctive forms instead of the positive imperative forms preceded by the negation (no/non). For example, the Spanish "no hables!" can be derived from a construction like "(quiero/pido/ordeno/comando ... que) no hables".


----------



## Ben Jamin

francisgranada said:


> Yes, or a "description" of what one has to do, e.g.:
> 
> _Mettere in una zuppiera il burro, il pecorino, il parmigiano, sale e pepe. Tagliare la pancetta a pezzetti e soffriggerla __...
> _
> This can be interpreted also as "_Bisogna _mettere ... _Si deve_ tagliare ...."


Or as just a series of names of actions (something like gerunds), not actually verbs.


----------



## Nino83

Ben Jamin said:


> Or as just a series of names of actions (something like gerunds), not actually verbs.


 
But when you read on a label _tenere lontano dalla portata dei bambini_, they are suggesting to do it. It is a soft command. It is a warning. It should be translated as _don't make the kids touch it_ or something similar. 



Gavril said:


> Incidentally, Enciclopedia Treccani claims that a  certain amount of analogical  leveling occurred to create the negative  imperative forms -- otherwise,  we would see forms like *_Non scrissere_ (< _non scripseris_) instead of _Non scrivere_, and *_Non dissere_ (< _non dixeris_) instead of_ Non dire_. Is there any direct evidence of the irregular perfect subjunctive forms in Italian or Romanian?
> 
> If not, then it would seem that the main evidence for the "Perfect subjunctive > Negative imperative" etymology is that _Non fare, Non parlare_ etc. are generally used for the 2nd person singular, whereas _Non fate, Non parlate_ etc. are used for the 2nd pers. plural. If forms like _Non fare_ were straightforwardly derived from the infinitive, this distribution would be harder to explain.



  "che dal gruppo dei verbi regolari viene estesa anche agli altri verbi: ne feceris > *non fecere > _non facere_ > _non fare_. Tale fenomeno risulta in uno dei primi documenti volgari, iscrizione della catacomba di Commodilla: non dicere ille secreta  a bboce" that document is dated VI-IX century. So these perfect subjunctives were regularized at an early stage.

    The Latin perfect subjunctive no longer exists in Italian language.


----------



## francisgranada

Ben Jamin said:


> Or as just a series of names of actions (something like gerunds), not actually verbs.


From the Italian point of view, I think, no. This is not a list of actions that _happen_, rather actions that _have to be done_ (to obtain a good spaghetti alla carbonara ). Hence the feeling/sense of imperativeness ... 


> ..when you read on a label _tenere lontano dalla portata dei bambini_, they are suggesting to do it...


Yes, you cannot substitute/translate it e.g. with gerund "tenendo lontano/keeping far"


----------



## Nino83

An example in Portuguese language can be found here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2793855 (this thread was open today): 

_No fundo, não se *limitar* a seguir uma moda, só porque toda a gente o faz 
Simply, *don't limit* yourself to following a trend, just because everyone else does
_
In this case the infinitive _limitar_ is used as an _imperative_, but this is not a strong command but an advise.


----------



## Gavril

francisgranada said:


> Simply: we say _Parla!  _In case of negative imperative there's no other possibility than _Non parlare!. _This is the grammaticalized form, whatever be it's origin and inspite of possible ambiguities (_non parlare _means also _not to speak_).



This relates to the question I asked earlier, of whether Italian speakers ever use _Non parlare_ for a 2nd person plural addressee (regardless of whether this usage is prescriptively wrong). I can imagine that it doesn't happen often, but I would be surprised if there is no noticeable pattern of it happening.

(Then again, the 2nd person plural imperative may be statistically rare to begin with, in which case there wouldn't be many noticeable patterns associated with the form of this imperative.)


----------



## francisgranada

Gavril said:


> ... whether Italian speakers ever use _Non parlare_ for a 2nd person plural addressee (regardless of whether this usage is prescriptively wrong). I can imagine that it doesn't happen often, but I would be surprised if there is no noticeable pattern of it happening.


I try to answer your question or rather to say my opinion (even if I'm not a native Italian): 

1. I think the infinitive is _not _percieved/used as an alternative form to the imperative (either positive or negative) in Italian, inspite of the before mentioned "quasi" imperative usages of the infinitive (in recipes, military commands, etc... )

2. In case of the negative imperative (_non parlare!_ etc...) one does not perceive or "intuitively analyze" this construction as something made of "negation + infinitve", but simply spontaneousely takes it as the imperative of the 2nd person singular,  inspite of the formal coincidence with the "true" infinitive. 

3. Addressing more people, i.e. 2nd pers. plural, clearly (I dare say _exclusively_) the form _Non parlate!_ is used. Nota bene: _non __parlate _formally coincides with the indicative (_voi non parlate_), neverthless it practically doesn't cause any problem ... 

4. In case _Non parlare! _is addressed to more people for some reason, _parlare _will be perceived as _infinitive _(as in case of military orders etc ...), i.e. not as the proper imperative of the 2nd pers. plural.

In other words, in my opinion, _Non dire!_ for an Italian means exactly the same as _No digas!_ for an hispanoparlante or _Don't say!_ for an English speaking person, regardless of the grammatical construction the negative imperative is "made up". (Finally the English _Do not say!_ instead of _Say not!_ is also interesting, but this is an other story ...)


----------



## Gavril

francisgranada said:


> I try to answer your question or rather to say my opinion (even if I'm not a native Italian):
> 
> 1. I think the infinitive is _not _percieved/used as an alternative form to the imperative (either positive or negative) in Italian, inspite of the before mentioned "quasi" imperative usages of the infinitive (in recipes, military commands, etc... )
> 
> 2. In case of the negative imperative (_non parlare!_ etc...) one does not perceive or "intuitively analyze" this construction as something made of "negation + infinitve", but simply spontaneousely takes it as the imperative of the 2nd person singular,  inspite of the formal coincidence with the "true" infinitive.
> 
> 3. Addressing more people, i.e. 2nd pers. plural, clearly (I dare say _exclusively_) the form _Non parlate!_ is used. Nota bene: _non __parlate _formally coincides with the indicative (_voi non parlate_), neverthless it practically doesn't cause any problem ...
> 
> 4. In case _Non parlare! _is addressed to more people for some reason, _parlare _will be perceived as _infinitive _(as in case of military orders etc ...), i.e. not as the proper imperative of the 2nd pers. plural.
> 
> In other words, in my opinion, _Non dire!_ for an Italian means exactly the same as _No digas!_ for an hispanoparlante or _Don't say!_ for an English speaking person, regardless of the grammatical construction the negative imperative is "made up". (Finally the English _Do not say!_ instead of _Say not!_ is also interesting, but this is an other story ...)



I'd agree that it probably means the same thing most of the time, but I'd still be very surprised if Italian speakers never draw an equivalence between the _parlare_ in _Non parlare!_ (2nd singular imperative) and the _parlare_ in _Mi è difficile parlare_ or (especially) in the command _Parlare!_ The very fact that people say _Non scrivere!_ instead of *_Non scrissere_, _Non fare!_ instead of *_Non fecere, _and so on, shows that the infinitive has already influenced the form of the 2sg. negative imperative, rather than just formally coinciding with it.

It's hard to say more until I find some empirical data touching on this question (e.g., data on the use of _Non parlare!_ for the 2pl.).


----------



## Ben Jamin

Gavril said:


> I'd agree that it probably means the same thing most of the time, but I'd still be very surprised if Italian speakers never draw an equivalence between the _parlare_ in _Non parlare!_ (2nd singular imperative) and the _parlare_ in _Mi è difficile parlare_ or (especially) in the command _Parlare!_ The very fact that people say _Non scrivere!_ instead of *_Non scrissere_, _Non fare!_ instead of *_Non fecere, _and so on, shows that the infinitive has already influenced the form of the 2sg. negative imperative, rather than just formally coinciding with it.
> 
> It's hard to say more until I find some empirical data touching on this question (e.g., data on the use of _Non parlare!_ for the 2pl.).


 Native speakers, except for some few investigatiing minds, are not aware of the structure of their nother tongue. As an example are most Italians firmly convinced that "vado" in the expression "vado a + infinitve" means literally "to walk on ones feet".


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> In other words, in my opinion, _Non dire!_ for an Italian means exactly the same as _No digas!_ for an hispanoparlante or _Don't say!_ for an English speaking person, regardless of the grammatical construction the negative imperative is "made up". (Finally the English _Do not say!_ instead of _Say not!_ is also interesting, but this is an other story ...)



 



Gavril said:


> It's hard to say more until I find some empirical  data touching on this question (e.g., data on the use of _Non parlare!_ for the 2pl.).



Nobody uses it.


----------



## Gavril

Ben Jamin said:


> Native speakers, except for some few investigatiing minds, are not aware of the structure of their nother tongue.



Perhaps not, but speakers do sometimes draw an analogy between forms that are phonetically identical, but are labelled (according to prescriptive rules) as "different". E.g., you will sometimes see an English speaker write _"I could of done" _rather than _"I could have done"_. This shows that, at some point, this speaker (or another speaker who influenced them) made a formal equivalence between _of_ and the unstressed auxiliary _have, _because of their similar (or identical) pronunciation. Maybe this equivalence has also extended into semantics, but that would be harder to determine.


----------



## merquiades

Some thoughts on the infinitive imperatives:

In Italian when you say _non mangiare!  non bere!_  do the accompanying objects combine with a verb as if it were an infinitive or follow the rules of an imperative construction?
To two people:   _Mangiatelo!   Non lo mangiate!   Bevetelo!  No lo bevete!_
To one person:   _Mangialo!  No lo mangiare/ Non mangiarlo! ???   Bevilo!  Non lo bere/ Non berlo! ???  _
Which one is most used for the negative command?  It can shed light on how Italians actually view the construction,  as a real infinitive or just another imperative.

In Spanish, in daily speech the infinitive has almost taken over completely the role of second person affirmative plural imperative, but not so with the singular forms or any negative imperatives, which would be the exact contrary to Italian.  This probably occurred orally when people confused _cantad, comed_  with _cantar, comer_.  Phonetically it is not so different.  It also avoids the awkward sounding strcture that comes about when you have to drop the d to add on the reflexive pronoun_ os.  Lavantad + os =  Levantaos >  Levantaros,   Vestid + os =  Vestíos > Vestiro__s_.  Say the RAE what it may,  the infinitive has no social stigma nowadays regardless of the register.   However, in a negative structure the subjunctive returns: _ No cantéis, no comáis, no os levantéis, no os vistáis_.

The structure with _a_ + infinitive cannot be used with every verb in Spanish.  I'm not sure what determines its acceptability.  _Tú a beber_, _a comer_, _a callar_.... but not _tú a hablar_.

In French orally -er verbs in the second person plural imperative (_mangez, parlez_) have the same pronunciation as the infinitive (manger, parler) and because of this spelling mistakes are rampant! Today I saw written on the side of a bus this advertisement: _Gagner un voyage au soleil pour 2 personnes!_  It should be _gagnez_.
There are a few verbs that for mysterious reasons take the subjunctive for imperatives: _ Ëtre (Sois, Soyons, Soyez),  Avoir (Aie, Ayons, Ayez),  Savoir (Sache, Sachons, Sachez),  Pouvoir (Puisse, Puissions, Puissiez),  Vouloir (Veuille, Veuillons, Veuillez)_.... probably a few more I cannot remember now.



			
				Francisgranada said:
			
		

> (Finally the English Do not say! instead of Say not! is also interesting, but this is an other story ...)


Not as common, but it is possible to say especially in speeches.  Ask not what your country can do for you!


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> To two people:   _Mangiatelo!   Non lo mangiate!   Bevetelo!  No lo bevete!_
> To one person:   _Mangialo!  No lo mangiare/ Non mangiarlo! ???   Bevilo!  Non lo bere/ Non berlo! ???  _
> Which one is most used for the negative command?  It can shed light on how Italians actually view the construction,  as a real infinitive or just another imperative.



Both forms are used and they are interchangeable. 
The major distinction between the negative imperative (2nd pers. sing.) and the negative infinitive is intonation. 
When you say _non andare_, the accent is always on the penultimate syllable, [non an'dare] (or non and*à*re) but when you use the imperative, all before the stressed /a/, _non andà_, is high pitched while the final _re_ is low-pitched. Now I understand when berndf was saying that in Italian language there was some sign of pitch accent.  
So there's no risk that one can misunderstand. These two forms are really different in speech.


----------



## francisgranada

Ciao Nino. I have two questions:

In some regional languages (_dialetti_) the infinitive has lost the _-re_ syllable, e.g. _mangiare _in Romanesco  is _magnà_. Is this the case of the negative imperative as well? I.e. _non magnà!

_Is it possible to omit the final _-e_ in case of the negative imperative 2nd pers. sg. for - let's say - euphonic reasons?
E.g. _Stai zitto, non parlar tanto!
_


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> When you say _non andare_, the accent is always on the penultimate syllable, [non an'dare] (or non and*à*re) but when you use the imperative, all before the stressed /a/, _non andà_, is high pitched while the final _re_ is low-pitched.


 
What pitch pattern is heard in the first _non andare_ (the one that's not an imperative)?

Also, what's the pitch contrast with verbs that are stressed on the antepenultimate syllable (e.g., _Non essere_ vs. _Non essere!_)?


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Ciao Nino. I have two questions:
> 
> In some regional languages (_dialetti_) the infinitive has lost the _-re_ syllable, e.g. _mangiare _in Romanesco  is _magnà_. Is this the case of the negative imperative as well? I.e. _non magnà!_


In this case the syllable _gnà_ is lower. 



francisgranada said:


> Is it possible to omit the final _-e_ in case of the negative imperative 2nd pers. sg. for - let's say - euphonic reasons?
> E.g. _Stai zitto, non parlar tanto!
> _



I don't say (normally) so, but you can. It's right from a grammatical point of view. 



Gavril said:


> What pitch pattern is heard in the first _non andare_ (the one that's not an imperative)?
> 
> Also, what's the pitch contrast with verbs that are stressed on the antepenultimate syllable (e.g., _Non essere_ vs. _Non essere!_)?



The infinitive doesn't have a pitch pattern, it is flat. 
_Non e_ (high-pitched) _ssere_ (low-pitched). 

So, when the imperative is at the end of a sentence, it has a descending pitch pattern (while the infinitive is flatter). 
When the imperative is not at the end of a sentence, the frase is high-pitched until the stress of the final word, for example: _non fare tardi__!_ --> _non fare ta_ (high pitched) _rdi_ (low pitched).


----------

