THE YORÙBÁ IMPERATIVE
THE YORÙBÁ IMPERATIVE
Credit: Prof L. O. Adewole
Yoruba for academic purpose
Adéwọle
(1987) has been described as ‘an exhaustive bibliography of works on Yorùbá’
(Connell and Ladd (1990: 5), but a look at the work shows that there is not a
single paper on the Yorùbá imperative. In some languages, the term ‘imperative’
is used to describe a rule involving distinctive inflection on the verb, but
the same term is also used for a clause-type which contrasts with declarative
and interrogative structures. It is this latter type of imperative we consider
here.
Following Huddleston (1984: 55-56), we would like to
state also that as in many other languages, the notional definition of an
imperative as ‘a clause used as a command or request, is neither a necessary
nor a sufficient condition for a clause to be imperative’. Imperative clauses
such as sùn un re ‘Sleep well’ and pẹ̀lẹ́ o ‘Hello’, which are used to
express wishes and greetings respectively, show that the definition is not a
necessary condition. Also, the use of declarative such as gbogbo yín gbọ́dọ̀ dúró
‘all of you must wait’ to issue commands, and the use of interrogatives such as
kí l’o dé tó ò ti lẹ̀kùn? ‘Why don’t
you close the door?’ to issue a request, show that the definition is not a
sufficient condition.
2. The characteristics of the Yorùbá
imperative
The Yoruba imperative is distinguished from its
declarative and interrogative counterparts by the following characteristics:
A. Its structure may or may not have an
overt grammatical subject. When it has a subject, this is always a second
person pronoun:
(1) jade! (2)
(ìwọ) jade! (3) *èmi
jade (4) *òun jáde
go out (you) go out I
go out he
go out
‘Go out ‘(You) go out’
‘ I go out ‘He goes out
B. In the VP, the imperative is characterised
by the absence of the high tone syllable (HTS):
(5) ìwọ o
jẹun yó Declarative
You HTS eat full
‘You ate to your satisfaction’
(6) ìwọ o
jẹun yó bí? Interrogative
You HTS eat full Q
‘Did you ate to your satisfaction’
(7) (ìwọ) jẹun yó Imperative
You eat full
‘Eat to your satisfaction’
(8) *(Olú) tí ra iṣu dé! Imperative
Olú REL buy yams come
‘(Olú) who buys yams come!’
(9) Olú ti
ó ra iṣu u dé! Declarative
Olú REL he yams come HTS come
‘Olú who bought yams come!’
(10) Ṣe Olú
ti ó ra iṣu u dé! Interrogative
Q Olú REL he buy yams HTS come
‘Has Olú who bought yams come!’
The
embedded clause in (8) is ra iṣu
‘buy yams’, an imperative, while that of (9) is ó ra iṣu ‘he buys/bought
yams’, a declarative. The main clause for (8) and (9) is Olú dé ‘Olú comes/came’. In (8), the relative marker tí is used to relativise the imperative
clause, ra iṣu ‘buy yams’, and the
relativised clause is used to modify Olú.
Example (8) is not grammatical because an imperative clause cannot occur in an
embedded sentence.
In (9), the relative marker tí is used to relative the declarative clause ó ra iṣu ‘he bought yams’, and the relativised clause is used to
modify Olú. (9) is grammatical
because a declarative can occur in an embedded sentence. This is not to say that
an imperative cannot occur in a complex sentence, but when it does, it is
always the main clause:
(11) so o kí n tó dé!
Say it that I
before arrive
‘Say it before my arrival!’
D.
kí ‘that’ always follows the report verb of an indirect imperative:
(12) Adé sọ fún Dàda pé kí
ó jade Imperative
Adé say give Dàda say that he go
out
‘Adé told Dàda that he should go
out’
(13) Adé sọ fún Dàda pé Òjó jade Declarative
Adé say give Dàda say Òjó go out
‘Adé told Dàda that Òjó went out’
(14) Adé bèèrè lọ́wọ́ Dàda pé ṣe Òjó jade Interrogative
Adé ask in hand Dàda say Q Òjó go
out
‘Adé asks Dàda if Òjó has gone out’
E. The first and third person pronominal
which are impossible as imperative subjects can occur in a jé ‘let’ clause where the second person pronominal is excluded:
(15) jẹ́ kí n jade
let that I go
out
‘Let me go out’
(16) jẹ́ kí
ó jade
let that he go
out
‘Let him go out’
(17) *jẹ́ kí o jade
let that
you go
out
‘Let yourself go out’
3. The two types of jẹ́ ‘let’
There
are two types of jẹ́ ‘let’. One is a
catenative verb with the meaning ‘allow’, and could be referred to as the
lexical jẹ́ (Huddleston 1984: 361).
The other is the grammaticalised jẹ́,
and Abraham (1958: 348) defines jẹ́
as: (a) allowed, and (b) allowed to do something. However, a look at sentences
(18-20) shows that these definitions are not accurate:
(18) jẹ́ kí a lọ wẹ̀
let that we go swim
‘Let us go and sim’
(19) jẹ́ kí a jọ lọ wẹ
let that we together we swim
‘Let us go and swim together’
(20) jẹ́ kí a tẹ̀lé
ọ
let that we follow you
‘Let us follow you’
In
(18) a ‘we’ can be interpreted as either including or excluding the addressee.
If it includes the addressee jẹ́ is
grammaticalised, but if it excludes the addressee jẹ́ is lexical. In (19) á
includes the addressee, and so the only interpretation available for jẹ́ is the grammaticalised one. In
(20), on the other hand, jẹ́ is
lexical because the only interpretation available for á is the one that excludes the addressee.
The grammaticalised
jẹ́ is restricted to the imperative and hence only occurs in main clauses
as in (19), whereas the lexical jẹ́
occurs in main clauses as in (20), and also in subordinate clauses as in (21):
(21) ó fẹ́ kí á
jẹ́ kí ó lọ
he want that we let that he go
‘He wants us to let him go’
The
difference in scope of negation we find in the lexical jẹ́ in (22) and (23) is not realized in the grammaticalised jẹ́ in (24) and (25):
(22) máà jẹ́ kí á tẹ̀lé ọ
NEG let that we follow you
‘Don’t let us follow you’
(23) jẹ́ kí á máà tẹ̀lé ọ
let that we NEG follow you
‘Let us not follow you’
(24) máà jẹ́ kí á ka ọ̀rọ̀ rẹ̀ sí
NEG let that we count word his note
‘Let us not take his word seriously’
(25) jẹ́ kí á máà ka ọ̀rọ̀ rẹ̀ sí
let that we NEG count world his note
‘Let us not take his word seriously’
Finally,
lexical jẹ́ can be replaced with gbà… láyè ‘allow, permit’, without
changing the construction. So, in place of (22) and (23), we can have (26) and
(27):
(26) máà gbà wa láyè kí á tẹ̀lé o
NEG allow we in
place that we follow you
‘Don’t allow us to follow you’
(27) Gbà wá láyè kí á má
tẹ̀lé ọ
NEG we in place that we NEG follow
you
‘Allow us not to follow you’
Apart
from the cases we have just described, there are at least two other occurrences
of jẹ́:
(28) (a) o kí mi ní páárápọngbá
you greet me in nonchalant
way
‘You greeted me in a
nonchalant way’
(b) mo jẹ ọ ní páárápọngbá
I answer you in nonchalant
way
‘I answered you in a
nonchalant way’
(c) o kí mi ní pààrapọngbà
you greet me in carefree
way
‘I answered you in a
carefree way’
(e) ó pè mi mo si jẹ́
he call me I and answer
‘He called me and I
answered’
(f) mo rán
an níṣé
ó sì jẹ́
iṣẹ́ ti mo ran an
I send
him in work he and
answer work that
I send him
‘I sent him on an errand and he
responded to the errand I sent him on’
(29) (a) aya mi ni ó jẹ́
wife my FOC
she is
‘She is my wife’
(b) Olú jẹ́ ọmọ rere
Olú is child good
‘Olú is a good boy’
In
(28) and (29) the jẹ́ cannot be
confused with any of the previous two cases because none of them can be
immediately followed by kí ‘that’. Compare (30) and (31) with (19) and (20),
and it will be seen that the interpretations differ considerably:
(30) *mo jẹ́ kí o ní páárápọngbà
I answer that you in nonchalant
way
*I answered that you in a nonchalant
way’
(31) *Olú jẹ́ kí ọmọ rere
Olú is that child good
*’Olú is that a good boy’
4. Imperative-like clauses
Clauses
such as (32), (33) and (34) look like imperative clauses because they also lack
subjects. They differ from imperative clauses, however, in that the subject is the
third person singular pronoun which ‘deletes obligatorily before kò/kì í (NEG)
and yóò (will)’ (Abímbọ́lá and Oyèláràn 1975: 42). It is because of the
obligatory deletion of this term that (35-37) are ungrammatical:
(32) kì í lo
NEG go
‘He doesn’t usually go (there)’
(33) kò lo
NEG go
‘He doesn’t go (there)’
(34) yóò lo
will go
‘He will go (there)’
(35) *ó kì
í lo
he NEG go
‘He doesn’t usually go (there)’
(36) *ó kò lo
he NEG go
‘He doesn’t go (there)’
(37) *ó yóò lọ
He will go
‘He will go (there)’
5. Negative Imperative
The
negative imperative marker máà also
occurs in non-imperative clauses after the potential marker (39), and after the
conditional marker (40):
(38) máà lo!
NEG go
‘Don’t go!’
(39) ó lèè máà lọ
he POT NEG go
‘He may not go’
(40) ẹ̀ báà máà lọ
You(pl.) CM NEG go
‘Even if you (pl) do not go’
6. The imperative in compound sentences
An
imperative can be coordinated with another imperative as in (41-44), a
declarative (45), and an interrogative (46):
(41) máà fún un ṣùgbọ́n fi í hàn án!
NEG give him but take it show him
‘Don’t give it to him but show it to
him!’
(42) fi í hàn án ṣùgbọ́n máà fún un!
take it show him but NEG give him
‘Show it to him, but don’t leave him
yet!’
(43) máà fẹ́ ẹ ṣùgbọ́n máà tíì kọ̀ ọ́ sílẹ̀!
NEG marry him but NEG PERF leave him in
ground
‘Don’t marry him but don’t leave him
yet!’
(44) mú un ṣùgbọ́n dá a padà !
take it but break it back
‘Take it but bring it back!’
(45) pè é ṣùgbọ́n o kò gbọ́dọ̀ fún
un!
call him but you NEG must give him
‘Call him but you must not give it
to him!’
(46) gbà á lọ́wọ́ rẹ̀ tàbí o ti fún un?
get it in hand his or you PERF give him
‘Collect is from him or have you
released it to him?
In
(41) to (43), each of the sentences contains two imperatives. In (45), we have
an imperative and an interrogative, and, in (46), we have an imperative and an
interrogative. Neither (45) nor (46) can be assigned to any of the three
clause-types – imperative, interrogative or declarative.
7. Aspect markers in the imperative
clauses
It
has been observed that ‘the imperative is almost always the morphologically
least marked verb often identical to the verb stem’ (Dahl 1985: 26). As Yoruba
verbs are non-inflecting and as the language is tenseless, it is not clear how
much Dahl’s claim is applicable. However, we note that the following aspects
markers occur in the Yorùbá imperative:
(47) tí lo kí n tó dé! Perfective marker
PERF go that I before come
‘Be gone before my arrival!’
(48) máa ṣe e! Habitual
marker
HAB do it
‘Do it often!’
(49) máa ṣe é! Progressive
marker
PROG do it
‘Start doing it!’
It
should be noted that the same máa
which marks the Habitual in (48) also marks the Progressive in (49). This is
due to the fact that both the Habitual and the Progressive share the same
variant in the Imperative. The negation in (50) and (51) clearly distinguishes
the two markers:
(50) máa máa ṣe é!
NEG HAB do it
‘Don’t do it (henceforth)!’
(51) máa ṣe é!
NEG do it
‘Don’t do it (now)!’
where
(50) negates the Habitual and (51) is the negation of the Progressive.
The occurrence of the progressive in Yorùbá imperative
clauses merits a special mention. Apart from the notion of futurity (which is
often explained in pragmatic terms), only a progressive reading can be given to
an imperative. Observe the following non-progressive imperatives and their
Progressive counterparts:
(52) (a) lọ!
go
‘Go!’
(b) Máa lọ
PROG
go
‘Start
going!’
(53) (a) jẹun!
eat
‘Eat!
(b) máa
jẹun
PROD eat
‘Start eating!’
(54) (a) sùn!
sleep
‘Sleep!’
(b) máa
sùn
PROG sleep
‘Start sleeping!’
All
the three non-progressive imperatives are matched with the progressive ones.
There are two ways in which the frequent occurrence of the progressive in the
imperatives in the language can be explained. First, the progressive marker
co-occurs obligatorily with some verbs, so the question of whether the verbs
are used as declaratives, imperatives, or interrogatives is not relevant. Examples
are:
(55) (a) mo ń bọ̀ Declarative
I PROG come
‘I am coming’
(b) *mo bọ̀
I come
‘I come’
(56) (a) ṣe o ń bọ̀? Interrogative
Q you PROG come
‘Are you coming?’
(b) *ṣé
o bọ̀?
Q you come
‘Do you come?’
(57) (a) máa bọ̀ Imperative
PROG come
‘Start coming’
(b) bọ̀
come
‘come
Second,
just as it does elsewhere, the progressive ‘allows the speaker to tell the
addressee, not merely to do something, but to be in the process of doing it at
some particular moment’ (Davies 1986: 15-16):
(58) sọ ó kí n tó dé!
say it that I
before come
‘Say it before my arrival!’
(59) máa sọ ó kí n tó dé!
PROG say it that I before come
‘Say it before my arrival!’
(58)
does not require the type of action in progress required in (59).
8. Echo-questions
Just
like the interrogative and declarative, the imperative can also be echoed both
with the yes/no and echo-questions:
(60) (a) ó na Olú Declarative
he hit Olú
‘He hit Olú’
(b) ó na Olú? Yes/no
question
he hit Olú
‘Did he hit Olú?’
(c) ó na ta ni? Echo-question
he hit who it is
‘He hit who?’
(61) (a) nígbà wo ni ó na Olú Interrogative
Time what it is he hit Olú
‘When did he hit Olú?’
(b) nígbà wo ni ó ná tá ni Echo-question
Time what it is he hit who it is
‘When did he hit who?’
(62) (a) na Olú! Imperative
hit Olú
‘Hit Olú!’
(b) na Olú?
hit Olú
‘Hit Olú?’
(c) na ta ni? Echo-question
hit who it
is
‘Hit who?’
9. Summary
We
have outlined some of the characteristics of the Yorùbá imperative. Dahl (1985:
26) has written that the imperative ‘is apparently found in all or almost all
languages’, but his claim that the imperative ‘tends to behave surprisingly
alike in them all’ is debatable. For instance, Keenan and Comrie (1977) have
established that all languages have relative clauses in which the subject of
the relative clause is related to the noun, but they found that the position of
relativisation permitted by individual languages in the ‘Accessibility
Hierarchy’ differs. To confirm the truth of Dahl’s claim, the syntactic and
pragmatic properties of the imperatives of more languages need to be studied in
more detail.
References
Abímbọ́lá, W. and O.O. Oyèláràn. (1975). ‘Consonant
elision in Yorùbá’, African Language Studies 16: 37-60.
Abraham, R.C. 1958. Dictionary of Modern Yorùbá.
London: Oxford University Press.
Adéwọlé, L.O. 1987. The Yorùbá Language, Published
Works and Doctoral Dissertations 1843-1986 (African Linguistic Bibliography
3), ed. by Fraz Rottland and Rainer Vossen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Connell,Bruce, and D. R. Ladd. 1990. Aspects of pitch
realization in Yorùbá Phonology 7: 1-29.
Dahl O. (1985), Tense
and Aspect Systems. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of
English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keenan, E., and B. Comrie. (1977), ‘Noun Phrase
Accessibility and Universal Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63-100.
[1] An
earlier version of this paper was published as L.O. Adewole (1991), ‘The Yoruba
Imperative’, African Languages and
Culture 4,2: 103-112.
Comments
Post a Comment