- 1 See however Kissine (2013: 104–106) for an alternative approach, according to which directive speec (...)
1Directive speech acts are commonly defined as urging the addressee to bring about (or to contribute to bringing about) the truth of a given propositional content,1 whereas wishes are commonly classified as a particular type of expressive speech acts. However, directive speech acts normally imply the speaker’s wish that the proposition involved in the directive speech act becomes true. Moreover, directive speech acts stricto sensu can only concern propositional contents whose realization is conceived as controllable by the addressee, but the distinction between controllable and uncontrollable states of affairs is far from being perfectly clear-cut, and in practice, there is often fuzziness in the limit between commands and wishes. Unsurprisingly, the forms and constructions used in a given language to express commands or wishes may be ambiguous between a directive and a purely optative interpretation, not to speak of the fact that commands are often expressed indirectly, by means of assertive or interrogative utterances which, depending on the context in which they are uttered, may be interpreted as aiming at provoking an action from the addressee.
2In the title of this article, ‘directive and optative clauses’ refers to monoclausal constructions interpreted as commands or wishes concerning the propositional content they encode, as opposed to the expression of commands or wishes by means of complex constructions consisting of a subordinate clause expressing a propositional content and a main clause referring to the manipulation of this propositional content in discourse, as in I would like you to help me.
3The following particularities of Manding languages are worth being immediately highlighted, since they condition the presentation of the data analyzed in this article:
4– Manding languages do not have dedicated apprehensive forms or constructions.
5– The expression of wishes by means of formulations exactly identical to those used for commands is uncommon in Manding languages.
6Blessing is a very important aspect of social intercourse in Manding culture, but the formulations used for blessing on solemn occasions such as the birth of a child, or marriage, are not distinct from those used for ordinary wishes in everyday life (as for example for wishing a good night when leaving each other before going to bed).
7The organization of the article is also conditioned by the fact that Manding languages have a particular TAM construction, the subjunctive construction, which plays a prominent role in the expression of commands and wishes. Section 2 describes the morphology of the subjunctive and its dependent uses. Section 3 describes the independent subjunctive clauses. Section 4 discusses the other possibilities of expressing commands or wishes by means of simple independent clauses. Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions.
- 2 The other Manding varieties that have been considered for this study and the sources that have been (...)
8In this article, the discussion of Manding directive and optative clauses is mainly illustrated by Bambara and Mandinka examples. The reasons are simply that much more precise data on the syntax of directive and optative clauses are available in the literature for Bambara than for any other Manding language, my personal documentation on Mandinka is much more important than on any other Manding language, and to the best of my knowledge, the available data on directive and optative clauses in the other Manding languages do not reveal the existence of phenomena that would not be also found either in Bambara or in Mandinka.2
- 3 For example, Mandinka has an incompletive predicative marker kà distinct from the adverbial copula (...)
9The inventories of predicative markers may vary across Manding languages as regards some details of the TAM distinctions they express,3 but they invariably include a pair of predicative markers (a positive one and its negative counterpart) whose distribution and functions are broadly similar to those of the verb forms labeled subjunctive or conjunctive in European grammatical traditions. They are designated here as subjunctive. The same term is used in Creissels & Sambou’s (2013) grammar of Mandinka and in Vydrin’s (2019b) handbook of Bambara grammar, but other terms can be found in the literature, such as ‘projectif’ in Dumestre’s (2003) grammar of bambara.
10In Manding languages, the subjunctive plays a crucial role in the expression of commands and wishes. This section is devoted to a succinct account of the morphology of the subjunctive and of its dependent uses. Independent subjunctive clauses, crucially involved in the expression of commands and wishes, are described in §3.
11The subjunctive positive markers found in the sample of Manding languages considered for this study can be divided into four different formal types:
12– KA, for example Bambara ká,
13– YE, for example Mandinka yè,
- 4 Idiatov (2020) analyzes YA and YE as belonging to one cognate set. However, the decision on this po (...)
14– YA: Koro yá (Creissels 1984), Koyaga yá (Creissels 1988),4
15– LA: Baninko Bambara lá (Togola 1984).
16Within the sample of Manding languages on which this study is based, YA is only attested in Koro and Koyaga (spoken in the center of Ivory Coast), and LA is only attested in Baninko Bambara, whereas both KA and YE have a wide distribution.
17The subjunctive markers subsumed under the label YE (such as Mandinka yè) are homonymous with a completive predicative marker found in many Manding languages (including Mandinka and Bambara). However, completive YE is found exclusively in transitive clauses, whereas subjunctive YE is not sensitive to transitivity. On a possible analysis of the historical significance of this coincidence, see Idiatov (2020).
18Interestingly, in some Manding varieties, subjunctive markers belonging to two different formal types may coexist in complementary distribution. In Mandinka, the most common form of the subjunctive marker is yè, but in contact with the pronouns ŋ́ (1SG) and ŋ̀ (1PL) the subjective marker is ŋà, to be interpreted as a variant of the type KA in nasal context. In Bambara, the subjunctive marker proper is ká, but yé is found in the 2nd person plural imperative.
19Subjunctive KA is segmentally identical with the pan-Manding infinitive marker kà, but differs from it in its tonal properties. Section 2.1.2 is devoted to a brief presentation of the kà-infinitive and a discussion of its possible relationship with the subjunctive.
20Manding languages have infinitival phrases that can be described as subjectless dependent clauses whose missing subject is interpreted either as arbitrary, or as coreferential with a nominal term of the matrix clause, depending on the wider construction in which the infinitival phrase is inserted. All Manding languages have at least one construction meeting this definition, the kà-infinitive construction, characterized by the presence of the infinitive marker kà or a variant thereof (glossed INF) in phrase-initial position.
- 5 Readers are referred to Dumestre’s (2003) Bambara grammar (chapter 14) and Vydrin’s (2019b) handboo (...)
21The structure of the kà-infinitive construction can be schematized as [kà (O) V (X)], with a verb in its bare form possibly combined with the same object and oblique phrases as in independent clauses projected by the same verb. In all the Manding languages for which data are available, the kà-infinitive has at least the three types of uses illustrated in the remainder of this section with Mandinka examples.5
22The kà-infinitive is spontaneously used by speakers as the quotation form of verbs, and this is consistent with the use of kà-phrases in topic position at the left periphery of clauses, resumed by a demonstrative pronoun within the clause, as in (1). In this use, the missing subject of the infinitive has an arbitrary interpretation.
(1)
|
Mandinka
|
|
[Kà
|
fúlá-káŋ-ó
|
kàrâŋ]i,
|
wǒoi
|
kòlèyâa-tá
|
báakè
|
lè.
|
|
INF
|
Fula-language-D
|
learn
|
DEM
|
be.difficult-CPL.ITR
|
very
|
FOC
|
|
‘Learning Fula is very difficult.’
|
23The kà-infinitive is also used in the complementation of modal or aspectual verbs, as in (2). In this use, the missing subject of the infinitive is interpreted as coreferential with the subject or the object of the matrix clause, depending on the higher verb.
(2)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Ŋ́
|
làfí-tá
|
[kà
|
ñǐŋ
|
súŋkútòo
|
fútûu].
|
|
1SG
|
want-CPL.ITR
|
INF
|
DEM
|
girl.D
|
marry
|
|
‘I want to marry this girl.’
|
- 6 An in-depth analysis of this construction in Bambara is provided by Vydrin (2020).
24The third well-attested type of use of the kà-infinitive is its use in the clause-chaining construction, typically used to express sequentiality. In this construction, an independent clause is followed by one or more infinitival phrases referring to events conceived as the successive phases of a complex event, the missing subject of the infinitival phrases being interpreted as coreferential with the subject of the first clause, as in (3).6
(3)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Kèê
|
wúlì-tá
|
[kà
|
mùrôo
|
fúntíndí
|
bòotôo
|
kónò].
|
|
man.D
|
stand.up-CPL.ITR
|
INF
|
knife.D
|
go.out.CAUS
|
bag.D
|
in
|
|
‘The man stood up and took out a knife from the bag’.
|
- 7 A particular clear case is that of the future predicative marker of Bambara ná, whose obvious etym (...)
25Across Manding languages, the infinitive marker kà is consistently L-toned (or H-toned in the Manding languages characterized by tonal inversion, such as Odienné Jula or Niokolo Maninka), whereas the subjunctive markers whose segmental form is ka show irregular variation in their tonal properties. However, this difference in their tonal behavior is not sufficient to exclude that the subjunctive markers whose segmental form is ka might originate from the transgrammaticalization of infinitive kà, since there is evidence that, in Manding languages, the acquisition of the status of predicative marker may trigger irregular tone changes.7 In fact, as rightly observed by Vydrin (2014), in subordinate clauses, the only difference between the subjunctive and the infinitive is the presence / absence of an overt subject. This strongly supports the hypothesis that the subjunctive markers whose segmental form is ka result from the replacement of a more ancient subjunctive marker yé or yè by the infinitive marker kà, whose tone may have been subsequently aligned with the high tone of the pre-existing predicative markers. The fact that yé subsists in the imperative clauses of Bambara (see §3.1) provides further support to this hypothesis.
26Interestingly, in Soninke, which belongs to a distinct branch of West Mande but shares many typological features with Manding, probably due to long-standing contact, the infinitive and subjunctive markers (transitive nà and intransitive nàn) are fully homonymous.
27The subjunctive negative marker shows less variation in its form than its positive counterpart, at least segmentally. The vast majority of Manding languages have forms that can be summarized as KANA, with, however, variations in tone and vowel length that do not conform to the regular phonetic correspondences between Manding varieties: Bambara kànâ, Kita Maninka káná ~ kánà, Mandinka kánàa, etc.
28However, a variant KA (with a high tone) in free variation with KANA is found in the southernmost Manding languages (Koro, Koyaga). Since the vowel a in this variant is neither long nor nasalized (as should be expected if KA resulted from the deletion of the intervocalic nasal of KANA), a plausible explanation is that, originally (i.e., before the creation of a subjunctive positive marker KA in some Manding languages), the subjunctive negative marker was ká (distinguished from the infinitive marker kà by tone only), and KANA resulted from the grammaticalization of the subjunctive negative form of the verb nà ‘come’. It is quite common in the languages of the world that inflected forms of ‘come’ or ‘go’ verbs grammaticalize as auxiliaries expressing various TAM values (Kuteva et al. 2019), and consequently a plausible scenario is that KANA emerged from the routinization of formulations whose original meaning was ‘don’t come and V!’, but in which the movement component of meaning became more and more bleached. This phenomenon can be observed in French, where for example Ne viens/va pas me dire que tu n’es plus d’accord, lit. ‘Don’t come/go and tell me that you don’t agree anymore’, is normally interpreted as an emphatic way of expressing ‘Don’t tell me that you don’t agree anymore’, without any idea of movement.
29Incidentally, such a use of the subjunctive negative of ‘go’ appears in example (15) below. Moreover, contrary to an objection raised by an anonymous reviewer, the length of the second vowel in Mandinka kánàa is not a problem for the analysis proposed here, quite on the contrary, since in western Manding varieties, most monosyllabic verbs (including nǎa ‘come) have a long vowel.
30The dependent uses of the subjunctive illustrated in sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.7 are found in all the Manding languages for which the relevant data are available. Section 2.2.8 describes a dependent use of the subjunctive which, as far as I am aware of, is only attested in Mandinka, and section 2.2.9 mentions a dependent use of the subjunctive that so far has only been signaled in Bambara. Since detailed syntactic descriptions are available for relatively few Manding languages, it cannot be excluded that perhaps other dependent uses of the subjunctive could be found in less documented Manding varieties.
31In the complementation of verbs expressing commands, advices, wishes, or agreement / disagreement, the complement clause can only be in the subjunctive or in the infinitive. When the subject of the complement clause is different from the subject of the matrix clause, as in (4), the subjunctive is the only possible choice.
(4)
|
Bambara
|
|
Ń
|
má
|
sɔ̀n
|
[í
|
ká
|
táa
|
yèn].
|
|
|
|
3SG
|
CPL.NEG
|
agree
|
2SG
|
SBJV
|
go
|
there
|
|
|
|
‘I don’t agree that you should go there.’
|
32In reported utterances marked as such by the quotative marker kó (equally used for direct and indirect quotations), the subjunctive marks reported commands, as opposed to reported assertions. Example (5) illustrates a construction in which the identity of the original speaker is not specified.
- 8 Note that, in Kita Maninka, bé is not found in copula function, and is used exclusively in verbal p (...)
(5)
|
Kita Maninka8
|
(5a)
|
Kó
|
Sékù
|
bé
|
nà.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOT
|
Sékou
|
FUT
|
come
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘It is said that Sékou will come.’
|
(5b)
|
Kó
|
Sékù
|
ká
|
nà.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOT
|
Sékou
|
SBJV
|
come
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Sékou is asked to come.’
|
33The subjunctive is used to mark adverbial clauses of purpose that need not be introduced by a conjunction, as in examples (6) to (8).
- 9 In the Bambara examples that do not come from my personal documentation, the tonal notation has bee (...)
(6)
|
Bambara (Dumestre 2003: 349)9
|
À
|
yé
|
gánsílî
|
kɛ́
|
[mɔ̀gɔ̂-ú
|
ká
|
nà
|
3SG
|
CPL.TR
|
announcement.D
|
made
|
person.D-PL
|
SBJV
|
come
|
nyɔ́gɔ́nyê
|
lá].
|
meeting.D
|
POSTP
|
34‘He made an announcement to ensure that people will come to the meeting.’
(7)
|
Bambara (Vydrin 2017: 129)
|
|
Fántà
|
nà-ná
|
[nê
|
ká
|
à
|
dɛ̀mɛ̀].
|
|
|
|
|
3SG
|
come-CPL.ITR
|
1SG
|
SBJV
|
3SG
|
help
|
|
|
|
|
‘Fanta came to me for help.’
|
(8)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Jèŋké
|
[wòtôo
|
yè
|
tàmbí].
|
|
|
|
stand.aside
|
car.D
|
SBJV
|
pass
|
|
|
|
‘Stand aside so that the car can pass.’
|
35However, depending on the individual languages, purpose clauses introduced by conjunctions can also be found. The conjunctions that introduce purpose clauses invariably trigger the use of the subjunctive in the clauses they introduce.
36Note also that, if the matrix clause is in the negative form, another reading of the same construction is possible, according to which the state-of-affairs denoted by the subjunctive clause is incompatible with that expressed by the matrix clause, as in (9).
(9)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Wòntôo
|
búká
|
sàwúŋ
|
[à
|
díŋ-ò
|
yè
|
ŋúnúmà].
|
|
giraffe.D
|
ICPL.NEG
|
jump
|
3SG
|
offspring-D
|
SBJV
|
crawl
|
|
lit. ‘The giraffe does not jump for its offspring to crawl.’
> ‘The giraffe jumps, how could its offspring crawl!’
|
37In adverbial clauses introduced by conjunctions specifying various semantic types of adverbial subordination, the use of the subjunctive depends on the choice of the conjunction. For example, in Bambara, the subjunctive is obligatory with sání ‘before’.
38(10) Bambara (Dumestre 2011: 872)
|
À
|
bɛ́
|
nà
|
[sání
|
dùgû
|
ká
|
jɛ́].
|
|
3SG
|
ICPL
|
come
|
before
|
atmosphere.D
|
SBJV
|
become.clear
|
39‘He will come before dawn.’ lit. ‘... before the atmosphere should become clear.’
40The subjunctive is also used in clauses that occupy a topic position at the left periphery of another clause and are interpreted as the expression of a propositional content resumed in the main clause by a 3rd person singular or demonstrative pronoun.
41(11) Bambara (Vydrin 2017: 127)
|
[Fúrâ
|
ká
|
gɛ̀lɛ̀yâ
|
lásé
|
mɔ̀gɔ́
|
mà]i,
|
|
medication.D
|
SBJV
|
problem.D
|
bring
|
person.D
|
POSTP
|
|
òi
|
bɛ́
|
kɔ̀lɔ̀sí
|
kósɛ́bɛ́.
|
|
DEM
|
ICPL
|
observe
|
very
|
42lit. ‘That medication brings problems to people, this is observed very much.’
43> ‘It is often observed that medication has undesirable side effects.’
44(12) Mandinka
|
[Kèê
|
yè
|
wúlûu]i,
|
í
|
ñàa
|
néné
|
yè
|
wǒoi
|
|
man.D
|
SBJV
|
give.birth.D
|
2SG
|
eye.D
|
ever
|
CPL.TR
|
DEM
|
|
jé
|
mìntóo
|
lè?
|
|
see
|
where
|
FOC
|
45lit. ‘That a man gives birth to a child, where did your eyes ever see that?’
46This use of the subjunctive emphasizes the affinity between subjunctive clauses and the kà-infinitive construction, since, as already observed in section 2.1.2, infinitive phrases introduced by kà have the ability to fulfill the same function.
47Manding languages have an obligative construction consisting of the unanalyzable obligative particle fɔ́ ‘it is necessary that...’ and a clause in the subjunctive.
(13)
|
Bambara (Dumestre 2011: 329)
|
|
Í
|
nàkân
|
yé
|
fɛ̂n
|
mîn
|
yé,
|
díyágóyâ lá,
|
|
2SG
|
destiny
|
NomCOP
|
thing.D
|
REL
|
as
|
in.any.case
|
|
fɔ́
|
ò
|
ká
|
í
|
sɔ̀rɔ̀.
|
|
OBLG
|
DEM
|
SBJV
|
2SG
|
get
|
48‘If something is your destiny, in any case, it must happen to you.’
(14)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Níŋ
|
í
|
yè
|
sólóo
|
bàràmá,
|
|
2SG
|
2SG
|
CPL.TR
|
panther.D
|
wound
|
|
fó
|
í
|
yè
|
sílá-kútòo
|
ñínîŋ.
|
|
OBLG
|
2SG
|
SBJV
|
road-new.D
|
look.for
|
49‘If you have wounded a panther, you must look for a new road.’
50As illustrated by example (15), in the negative, an apprehensive reading of the obligative construction is possible.
(15)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Nûntó
|
kèebâa-lú
|
máŋ
|
làfí
|
tùbáabòo-lú
|
sìiñóoyàa
|
|
|
formerly
|
elder.D-PL
|
CPL.NEG
|
want
|
European.D-PL
|
cohabitation.D
|
|
|
lá,
|
ì
|
kánàa
|
táa
|
ì
|
díŋ-ò-lú
|
|
|
POSTP
|
3PL
|
SBJV.NEG
|
go
|
3PL
|
child-D-PL
|
|
|
káafíríyá-ndì
|
|
become.an.unbeliever-CAUS
|
51‘Formerly, the elders did not want to live together with Europeans, lest they deter their children from religion.’
52One may wonder whether the obligative particle fɔ́ was borrowed from French (il) faut ‘it is necessary’, or is the result of language-internal evolution. The point is that the obligative particle might be cognate with the conjunction fɔ́ ‘until’ (or ‘unless’). Moreover, the hypothesis of a language-internal evolution is strongly supported by the observation that the same coincidence between an obligative particle and a conjunction ‘until’ is found in the Soninke-Bozo branch of West Mande with completely different forms (Soninke mà, Jenaama (Bozo) (ŋ̄)kàlà). However, the historical scenario that might relate a conjunction ‘until’ / ‘unless’ and an obligative particle is unclear.
53Individual Manding languages may have other modal particles triggering the use of the subjunctive in the clauses they introduce. For example, Mandinka has an optative particle dàŋkó.
(16)
|
Mandinka
|
(16a)
|
Dàŋkó
|
ŋ́
|
ŋà
|
ké
|
mànsàkêe
|
tí.
|
|
|
OPT
|
1SG
|
SBJV
|
become
|
king.D
|
as
|
|
|
‘If only I could become a king!’
|
- 10 In this particular example, an apprehensive reading is possible: ‘Be careful, you might poke a hole (...)
(16b)
|
Dàŋkó
|
í
|
kánàa
|
kátóo
|
sǒo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPT
|
2SG
|
SBJV.NEG
|
ball.D
|
pierce
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Let’s hope you won’t poke a hole in the ball!’10
|
54A general rule in Manding languages is that, in sequences of direct commands concerning the same addressee, the first clause may instantiate the dedicated imperative construction described in §4.1, but the following clauses can only be in the subjunctive, as in (17a, b).
(17)
|
Mandinka
|
(17a)
|
Fùntóo
|
tǎa
|
í
|
yè
|
táabúlòo
|
fítà!
|
|
cloth.D
|
take
|
2SG
|
SBJV
|
table.D
|
wipe
|
|
‘Take (sg.) a cloth and wipe the table!’
|
(17b)
|
Álí
|
kíní-tòo-lú
|
jì-ndí
|
nǎŋ
|
|
2PL
|
food-leftover.D-PL
|
go.down-CAUS
|
VEN
|
|
álí
|
yé
|
ì
|
díi
|
wùlôo-lú
|
là.
|
|
2PL
|
SBJV
|
3PL
|
give
|
dog.D-PL
|
POSTP
|
|
‘Bring the food leftovers and give them to the dogs!’
|
55As mentioned in §2.1.2, all Manding languages have clause chains expressing sequentiality in which the non-initial clauses are reduced to infinitival phrases. In Mandinka, a clause-chaining construction with the non-initial clauses in the subjunctive, as in (18), is also possible (and is in fact more usual than the clause-chaining construction with the kà-infinitive).
(18)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Ŋ́
|
sì
|
í
|
bùlá
|
bòotôo
|
kónò,
|
|
1SG
|
POT
|
2SG
|
put
|
bag.D
|
in
|
|
ŋ́
|
ŋá
|
à
|
dáa
|
sìtí
|
jùlùkésòo
|
lá,
|
|
1SG
|
SBJV
|
3SG
|
opening.D
|
tie
|
rope.D
|
POSTP
|
|
ŋ́
|
ŋá
|
nǎa
|
í
|
fáyì
|
bâa
|
kónò.
|
|
1SG
|
SBJV
|
come
|
2SG
|
throw
|
river.D
|
in
|
|
‘I can put you in a bag, tie its opening with a rope, and throw you in the river.’
|
- 11 For Balant Ganja, cf. Creissels &Biaye (2016: 273–274); for Jóola Fóoñi, see Creissels & Bassène (2 (...)
56The sequential use of the subjunctive found in Mandinka may be a trace of an earlier stage in the development of the sequential construction, if one accepts Idiatov’s (2020) analysis. However, one may also think that contact with Atlantic languages has played a role in either the maintenance or the emergence of the sequential use of the subjunctive in Mandinka, since in the Atlantic languages in contact with Mandinka (such as Balant Ganja or Jóola Fóoñi) a form whose uses are broadly comparable to those of the Manding subjunctive is commonly used in clause chains expressing sequentiality.11
57Vydrin (2019b: 435–438) describes a Bambara construction in which two clauses denoting two events that immediately follow each other are coordinated by àní ‘and’ and followed by a third clause expressing the quasi-simultaneity of the two events. In this construction, there is some variation in the form of the first clause, but the second one (i.e. the clause that follows àní) is invariably in the subjunctive, as in (19).
(19)
|
Bambara (Vydrin 2019b: 436)
|
|
Nzǒn-ù
|
fáná
|
tló
|
dòn
|
ò
|
kúlékân
|
ná,
|
|
thief.D-PL
|
also
|
ear.D
|
enter
|
DEM
|
scream.D
|
POSTP
|
|
àní
|
ò-lû
|
fànà
|
ká
|
ù
|
yɛ̀rɛ̂
|
ɲíní,
|
|
and
|
DEM-PL
|
also
|
SBJV
|
3PL
|
self
|
look.for
|
|
ò
|
bɛ́ɛ
|
kɛ́-rá
|
kélén
|
yé.
|
|
DEM
|
all
|
do-CPL.ITR
|
one
|
as
|
58lit. ‘That the thieves heard this scream, and that they ran away, all that was one.’
59In Manding languages, simple independent clauses in the subjunctive constitute the standard way of expressing various kinds of commands and wishes, depending on the nature of the subject and on the context (§§3.1-5). However, an independent use of subjunctive clauses that cannot be considered as either directive or optative is also attested (§3.6).
60Independent subjunctive clauses with a second person subject are a usual way of expressing a request to the addressee(s) to perform the action denoted by the verb (or, in the negative, to refrain from performing it), as in (20).
(20)
|
Bambara
|
(20a)
|
Í
|
ká
|
dúnán
|
fò!
|
|
|
2SG
|
SBJV
|
guest.D
|
greet
|
|
|
‘Greet (sg.) the guest!’
|
(20b)
|
Í
|
kànâ
|
wárí
|
tà!
|
|
|
2SG
|
SBJV.NEG
|
money.D
|
take
|
|
|
‘Don’t (sg) take the money!’
|
(20c)
|
Âú
|
ká
|
Fántà
|
wéelé
|
ń
|
yé!
|
|
2PL
|
SBJV
|
Fanta
|
call
|
1SG
|
for
|
|
‘Call (pl.) Fanta for me!’
|
(20d)
|
Âú
|
kàná
|
ń
|
bùgɔ̀!
|
|
|
2PL
|
SBJV.NEG
|
1SG
|
hit
|
|
|
‘Don’t (pl.) hit me!’
|
61In this use, the subjunctive is in competition with the dedicated imperative forms described in §4.1. The nuance is that, in the expression of commands, the subjunctive is perceived by speakers as less abrupt than the imperative.
62In the world’s languages, it is common that the use of constructions typically used for commands is also possible with reference to states of affairs beyond the control of the addressee(s), in which case they are interpreted as expressing a wish rather than a command, as in English Get well soon! or Have a good night!. Interestingly, the available descriptions of Manding languages do not provide examples unambiguously suggesting this possibility, and from my experience of working with native speakers of Manding languages, I am inclined to conclude that Manding speakers tend to avoid using subjunctive clauses with second person subjects or imperative clauses in contexts that would force a purely optative reading. Manding speakers strongly prefer to formulate wishes in a way that unambiguously triggers a purely optative interpretation, i.e. by means of either subjunctive clauses with Álá ’God’ in subject role (see §3.3), or dedicated optative constructions (see §4.2).
63Independent subjunctive clauses with a first person plural subject express a request to the addressee(s) to perform the action denoted by the verb jointly with the speaker (or, in the negative, to refrain from performing it).
(21)
|
Bambara
|
|
Án
|
ká
|
sègín
|
kà
|
táa
|
só!
|
|
1PL
|
SBJV
|
return
|
INF
|
go
|
home
|
|
‘Greet (sg.) the guest!’
|
(22)
|
Mandinka
|
(22a)
|
Ŋ̀
|
ŋà
|
wúlì!
|
|
1PL
|
SBJV
|
get.up
|
|
‘Let’s go!’
|
(22b)
|
Ŋ̀
|
ŋà
|
tèntéŋ
|
ŋ̀
|
ná
|
kàcâa
|
lá!
|
|
1PL
|
SBJV
|
continue
|
1PL
|
GEN
|
conversation.D
|
POSTP
|
|
‘Let’s continue our conversation!’
|
|
64Independent subjunctive clauses with a third person subject other than Álá ‘God’ are interpreted as requests to collaborate in some way or another to the realization of the state of affairs denoted by the clause, minimally by not opposing it.
(23)
|
Bambara (Dumestre 2003: 212)
|
(23a)
|
À
|
ká
|
sà!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3SG
|
SBJV
|
die
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Let him die!’
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23b)
|
Ǒ
|
kànâ
|
fɔ́
|
òlû
|
sí
|
yé!
|
|
|
|
|
DEM
|
SBJV.NEG
|
tell
|
3PL
|
none
|
to
|
|
|
|
|
‘This should not be told to any of them!’
|
(24)
|
Mandinka
|
(24a)
|
À
|
kánáa
|
fùlàñjâŋ!
|
|
3SG
|
SBJV.NEG
|
happen.a.second.time
|
|
‘Let it not happen again!’
|
(24b)
|
Fìtíròo
|
kánáa
|
í
|
tàrá
|
sàatêe
|
kónò!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dusk.D
|
SBJV.NEG
|
2SG
|
find
|
village.D
|
in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lit. ‘Let the dusk not find you in the village!’ > ‘Come home before dusk!’
|
65As already indicated, in Manding languages, the strategy of expressing wishes by simply using constructions that normally express commands in contexts that force a purely optative reading is not used with the same freedom as in languages such as English or French. In Manding languages, it is possible to express wishes concerning states of affairs conceived as being beyond the control of the speech act participants by means of independent subjunctive clauses, but in such cases, the possibility of a directive interpretation is normally ruled out by the choice of formulations in which the subject role is not fulfilled by a noun phrase referring to a participant in the state-of-affairs referred to, but by Álá ‘God’, as in (25).
(25)
|
Bambara (Dumestre 2003: 212)
|
(25a)
|
Álá
|
ká
|
dùgú
|
ìn
|
lá-bìn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
God
|
SBJV
|
village
|
DEM
|
CAUS-fall
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘May God cause the ruin of this village!’
|
(25b)
|
Álá
|
kànâ
|
né
|
bɛ̀n
|
ní
|
dɔ̀lɔ̀mìnnà
|
wɛ́rɛ́
|
yé
|
nìn
|
kɔ́!
|
|
God
|
SBJV.NEG
|
1SG
|
meet
|
with
|
drunkard
|
other
|
with
|
DEM
|
after
|
|
‘May God prevent me from meeting another drunkard after this one!’
|
66The subjunctive can be used in independent interrogative clauses with a first person subject (either singular or plural) to express request for confirmation about what the speaker(s) is/are expected to do, or request for clarification about a command or instruction, as in (26).
(26)
|
Mandinka
|
(26a)
|
Ŋ̀
|
ŋà
|
álí
|
dàndáŋ
|
bǎŋ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1PL
|
SBJV
|
2PL
|
accompany
|
Q
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Should we accompany you?’
|
(26b)
|
Ŋ́
|
ŋà
|
mú
|
nè
|
tábì
|
lúntáŋò-lú
|
yè?
|
|
|
|
1SG
|
SBJV
|
what
|
FOC
|
cook
|
guest.D-PL
|
for
|
|
|
|
‘What should I cook for the guests?’
|
67However, with a first person singular subject, depending on the context, such clauses are not necessarily interpreted as true questions calling for a reaction from the addressee, and can also express a deliberative meaning. For example, (26b) can also express ‘I wonder what I could cook for the guests’.
68Independent subjunctive clauses may also constitute exclamative utterances glossable as ‘How is it possible that ...!’, as in (27).
(27)
|
Bambara (Vydrin 2017: 80)
|
|
Ée!
|
Màlòkìsɛ̀
|
dén
|
kélén
|
ká
|
kòlôn
|
fá
|
ń
|
kùn!
|
|
INTERJ
|
grain.of.rice
|
unit
|
one
|
SBJV
|
mortar.D
|
fill
|
1SG
|
on
|
|
‘Hey, how is it possible that a single grain of rice fills my mortar!’
|
69A plausible explanation of the exclamative use of independent subjunctive clauses is that it developed as an instance of insubordination from the construction described in §2.2.5 above, in which a subjunctive clause occupies a topic position at the left periphery of another clause in which the propositional content denoted by the subjunctive clause is resumed by a pronoun. According to this hypothesis, the exclamative use of subjunctive clauses illustrated in (26) might have resulted from conventionalization of the use of subjunctive clauses in topic position with the main clause left implicit.
70All Manding languages have a dedicated imperative construction, at least for commands concerning a single addressee (imperative singular). A dedicated imperative construction is sometimes also found for commands formulated positively that concern two or more addressees, but never for negative commands (or prohibitions) concerning two or more addressees.
71As already mentioned, commands expressed by means of the dedicated imperative construction are perceived by speakers as more categorical than commands conveyed by subjunctive clauses.
72In Manding languages, as illustrated in (28), the distinctive mark of the imperative singular is the lack of an overt subject, plus, in the positive, the lack of an overt predicative marker. In the negative, the predicative marker of the subjunctive negative is also used in the imperative construction.
(28)
|
Mandinka
|
(28a)
|
Wùlôo
|
fúntí-ndì
|
búŋò
|
kónò!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dog.D
|
go.out-CAUS
|
room.D
|
in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Chase (sg.) the dog out of the room!’
|
(28b)
|
Kánàa
|
díndíŋò-lú
|
búsà!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SBJV.NEG
|
child.D-PL
|
hit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Don’t hit (sg.) the children!’
|
73In the plural, some Manding languages have a dedicated imperative construction in the positive, but never in the negative. In the imperative plural, the subject slot is occupied by the second person plural pronoun. What distinguishes the imperative plural from the subjunctive with a 2nd person plural subject is that, in the imperative plural, the predicative marker slot is either empty, as in Mandinka (29), or occupied by a special predicative marker, as in Bambara (30).
(29)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Álí
|
wùlôo
|
fúntí-ndì
|
búŋ-ò
|
kónò!
|
|
|
|
|
|
2PL
|
dog.D
|
go.out-CAUS
|
room-D
|
in
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Chase (pl.) the dog out of the room!’
|
(30)
|
Bambara
|
|
Á
|
yé
|
fárá
|
ń
|
ná!
|
|
|
|
|
|
2PL
|
IMP.PL
|
separate
|
1SG
|
POSTP
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Leave (pl.) me alone!’
|
74As already observed, the fact that Bambara has a dedicated imperative plural marker yé coinciding with the subjunctive marker found in many other Manding languages supports the hypothesis that the situation currently observed in Bambara results from the (incomplete) replacement of the subjunctive marker yé by an innovative subjunctive marker whose origin is the pan-Manding infinitive marker kà.
75Mandinka also has a special marker àlíŋà whose meaning is that two or more addressees are asked to perform the action denoted by the verb jointly with the speaker. Etymologically, this marker can be decomposed as àlí (irregular tonal form of álí (2PL)) + ŋ̀ (1PL) + ŋà (allomorph of the subjunctive marker in contact with a first person pronoun).
(31)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Àlíŋà
|
Músáa
|
dèemá!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMP.1+2PL
|
Moussa
|
help
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Let’s help Moussa!’
|
76Another particularity of the Mandinka imperative that does not seem to be found in the other Manding languages is the possibility to express commands in a less categorical way by adding to the imperative construction the particle bǎŋ (32b), otherwise used to convert assertions into yes/no questions (32a).
(32)
|
Mandinka
|
(32a)
|
Í
|
bé
|
kùurôo
|
ké-lá
|
bǎŋ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2SG
|
AdvCOP
|
washing.D
|
do-INF
|
Q
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Are you going to do the washing?’
|
(32b)
|
Kùurôo
|
ké
|
bǎŋ!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
washing.D
|
do
|
Q
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Please, do the washing!’
|
77Finally, some Mandinka varieties (for example the Kaabunka variety spoken in the northeastern part of Guinea Bissau) have a suffix ‑nnu marking plurality of addressees that optionally attaches to verbs in the imperative construction. The etymology of this suffix is unclear, and nothing similar has been signaled in the other Manding languages.
(33)
|
Mandinka (Kaabunka variety)
|
|
Màndìŋkà-díndíŋ-ò-lú
|
kò
|
“Fúlá-díndíŋ-ò-lú
|
félé
|
nǎŋ,
|
|
|
|
|
|
mandinka-child-D-PL
|
QUOT
|
fula-child-D-PL
|
look
|
VEN
|
|
|
|
|
|
àlíŋà
|
táa
|
ì
|
bǔutèe-nnú!”
|
|
|
IMP.1+2PL
|
go
|
3PL
|
hit-PL
|
|
78‘The Mandinka children said: “Here come Fula children, let’s go and hit them!’
79In all Manding languages, the expression of wishes by means of subjunctive clauses with Álá ‘God’ in subject role (see §3.4) is in competition with a dedicated optative construction that can be schematized as follows:
80Álá ‘God’ – OPT – VPOPT
81The second element of the optative construction is an optative marker found exclusively in this construction, in which it seems to occupy the position occupied by the predicative marker in other types of verbal clauses: Mandinka màa, Kita Maninka mán, Bambara má ~ mà ~ máa, etc.
82The third element of the optative construction is a transitive verb phrase (i.e., a verb obligatorily preceded by an object NP and optionally followed by one or more oblique phrases) in which the verb is marked by the optative suffix ‑la (with variants ‑na in nasal context, and ‑ra in the Manding languages in which r may be the reflex of a former l, such as Bambara).
83(34) Mandinka
|
Álá
|
màa
|
ŋ̀
|
níŋ
|
í
|
só-lá
|
sìimàayàa-bâa
|
nîŋ
|
|
God
|
OPT
|
1PL
|
and
|
2SG
|
give-OPT
|
life-large.D
|
and
|
|
jáatákéndéyàa
|
lá!
|
|
health.D
|
POSTP
|
84‘May God give you and us long life and health!’
85As illustrated by example (35), to be compared with (34), in Mandinka, the optative suffix ‑la coincides with a suffix ‑la that can be analyzed as an infinitive suffix used for example in the complementation of modal verbs in competition with infinitive kà.
(35)
|
Mandinka
|
(35a)
|
Ŋ́
|
làfí-tá
|
í
|
só-lá
|
ŋ́
|
dímmúsòo
|
lá.
|
|
|
|
|
1SG
|
want-CPL.ITR
|
2SG
|
give-INF
|
1SG
|
daughter.D
|
POSTP
|
|
|
|
|
‘I want to give you my daughter.’
|
(35b)
|
Ŋ́
|
làfí-tá
|
kà
|
í
|
só
|
ŋ́
|
dímmúsòo
|
lá.
|
|
|
|
1SG
|
want-CPL.ITR
|
INF
|
2SG
|
give
|
1SG
|
daughter.D
|
POSTP
|
|
|
|
‘I want to give you my daughter.’
|
86However, across Manding languages, the suffix that marks verbs in the optative construction does not always coincide with a suffix analyzable in other constructions as in infinitive suffix. For example, in Bambara, the optative suffix has the same allomorphs (‑ra, ‑la and ‑na) as the completive marker in intransitive clauses, but the distribution of the allomorphs of the optative suffix is less regular than that of the allomorphs of the completive suffix (Vydrin 2019b: 104).
87An interesting particularity of the optative construction is that analyzing it as monoclausal requires introducing a rule according to which the optative construction imposes a transitive use of all verbs, regardless of their inherent valency properties, and triggers what can be analyzed as morphologically unmarked causativization of the verbs that are in principle strictly intransitive. For example, analyzing (36) as monoclausal implies considering that, in this construction, Mandinka bálûu ‘live’ is interpreted as ‘let live’, whereas in other contexts, ‘let live’ is normally expressed as bálúndì (where ‑ndi is a causative suffix).
(36)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Álá
|
màa
|
díndíŋò
|
bálùu-lá!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God
|
OPT
|
child.D
|
live-OPT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘May God let the child live!’
|
88Of course, in a historical perspective, this particularity of the optative construction can rather be viewed as evidence that it developed from an originally biclausal construction in which the verb in the embedded clause had its normal behavior with respect to valency and transitivity.
89The dedicated optative construction exists only in the positive. Clauses in the subjunctive negative with Álá ‘God’ in subject role, as in (37), are the only possible option for wishes formulated negatively.
(37)
|
Mandinka
|
|
|
|
Álà
|
kánáa
|
à
|
ké
|
àlìfàa-sòkì-díŋò
|
tí!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God
|
SBJV.NEG
|
3SG
|
make
|
elder-contradict-child.D
|
as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘May God not let him become a child that doesn’t obey his elders!’
|
90As regards the etymology of the Manding optative marker, it can be observed that, cross-linguistically, the expression of wishes often involves formulations such as French Dieu fasse que (lit. ‘let God make that’), cf. for example Jóola Fóoñi Emitey ekaan (Emitey ‘God’, ekaan subjunctive of ‑kaan ‘do’). This suggests that the pan-Manding optative marker might well be a reflex of the Mande root *ma ‘do, make’, which is widely attested across the Mande language family but has not subsisted in Manding as a verb. Note, however, that the Maninka varieties of Eastern Senegal have an optative marker mu whose historical relationship with the other forms of this marker is unclear.
91In Mandinka (but apparently not in the other Manding languages), the optative construction has a variant in which the optative marker is not followed by a verb phrase, but by a subjunctive clause. Although màa is clearly not a verb (at least synchronically), its syntactic status in this variant of the optative construction is comparable to that of the verb of the matrix clause in a complex construction.
(38)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Álá
|
màa
|
[díndíŋò
|
yè
|
kéndéyâa]!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God
|
OPT
|
child.D
|
SBJV
|
recover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘May God grant that the child should recover!’
|
92Mandinka is to the best of my knowledge the only Manding language in which the phenomenon described in this section is attested, but a similar evolution is found in Jóola Fóoñi, an Atlantic language in close contact with Mandinka (Creissels & Bassène 2022).
93In Mandinka, it is possible to find sentences that seem to instantiate the construction described in §4.2.2, with, however, Álá ‘God’ repeated as the subject of the subjunctive clause.
(39)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Álá
|
màa
|
[Álà
|
yè
|
ŋ̀
|
só
|
sìimàayàa-bâa
|
lá]!
|
|
|
|
God
|
OPT
|
God
|
SBJV
|
1PL
|
give
|
life-large.D
|
POSTP
|
|
|
|
‘May God give us long life!’
|
94However, in its literal reading, the construction illustrated in (39) violates a very general constraint on subordinating constructions. Normally, if a term of a subordinate clause is coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause, it cannot be expressed as the repetition of the NP fulfilling the subject role in the matrix clause, as seems to be the case in (39), and can only be expressed as a pronoun, or left unexpressed.
95This suggests that, in a construction that was originally a biclausal construction with Álá as the subject of the matrix clause, the verb of the subordinate clause is being reanalyzed as the nucleus of a monoclausal construction, whereas what was originally the matrix clause is being reanalyzed as an optative particle. In example (39), the repetition of Álá ‘God’ as the subject of the verb denoting the desired state of affairs can only be analyzed consistently by positing that the first occurrence of Álá does not act as a referential expression anymore, and that the sequence Álá màa behaves as a syntactically unanalyzable block acting as an optative particle. In other words, the construction described in §4.2.2 is being reanalyzed as the combination of a subjunctive clause with an optative particle álámàa, and clauses such as (38) and (39) are best analyzed synchronically as indicated in (40).
(40)
|
Mandinka
|
(40a)
|
Álámàa
|
díndíŋò
|
yè
|
kéndéyâa!
|
|
OPT
|
child.D
|
SBJV
|
recover
|
|
‘May the child recover!’
|
(40b)
|
Álámàa
|
Álà
|
yè
|
ŋ̀
|
só
|
sìimàayàa-bâa
|
lá!
|
|
OPT
|
God
|
SBJV
|
1PL
|
give
|
life-large.D
|
POSTP
|
|
‘May God give us long life!’
|
96In some Manding languages, infinitival phrases can be used as independent interrogative clauses whose function is to check or confirm a command (for example, in Bambara, kà táa, infinitive of táa ‘go’, uttered with an interrogative intonation or combined with an interrogative particle, is interpreted as ‘Should I / we go?’).
97Another use of infinitival phrases as constituting utterances by themselves, attested in Bambara (but not in Mandinka), is the optative use of infinitival phrases, as in (41b). Such utterances are perceived by speakers as the elliptical form of subjunctive clauses such as (41a), with Álá ‘God’ in subject role (see §3.4), which provides further support to the hypothesis of a historical relationship between subjunctive ká and infinitive kà.
(41)
|
Bambara (Dumestre 2003: 213)
|
(41a)
|
Álá
|
ká
|
dén
|
cámán
|
dí
|
í
|
mà!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God
|
SBJV
|
child
|
many
|
give
|
2SG
|
to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘May God give you many children!’ (optative use of a subjunctive clause)
|
(41b)
|
Kà
|
dén
|
cámán
|
dí
|
í
|
mà!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INF
|
child
|
many
|
give
|
2SG
|
to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
infinitival phrase used as an optative utterance with the same meaning as (a)
|
98Example (42) further illustrates this use of infinitival phrases in the formulation of wishes commonly expressed in everyday life.
(42)
|
Bambara
|
(42a)
|
Kà
|
sû
|
hɛ́rɛ̂
|
cáyá!
|
|
INF
|
night.D
|
happiness.D
|
increase
|
|
‘Good night!’
|
(42b)
|
Kà
|
án
|
bɛ̀n!
|
|
INF
|
1PL
|
meet
|
|
‘Goodbye!’
|
(42b)
|
Kà
|
sírâ
|
díyá!
|
|
INF
|
road.D
|
be.pleasant
|
|
‘Have a good trip!’
|
99Indirect commands by means of assertive or interrogative clauses interpreted in a given context as suggesting a request are very common in the world’s languages, and Manding languages are no exception. Language etiquette is a crucial aspect of social interaction in Manding societies, and Manding speakers tend in particular to develop more or less conventionalized strategies for avoiding formulations that may be perceived as rude, such as negative answers or direct commands.
100In Manding languages, the use of interrogative clauses in the future negative with a second person subject constitutes a very common politeness strategy for suggesting a request to an addressee with whom an explicit formulation of the request could be considered inappropriate.
(43)
|
Bambara
|
|
Í
|
tɛ́nà
|
í
|
ká
|
nɛ̀gɛ̀sô
|
síngá
|
ń
|
mà?
|
|
|
|
2SG
|
FUT.NEG
|
2SG
|
GEN
|
bicycle.D
|
lend
|
1SG
|
to
|
|
|
|
‘Won’t you lend me your bicycle?’ > ‘Please, lend me your bicycle!’
|
101Mandinka has a potential predicative marker sì ~ sè which has no exact equivalent in the other Manding languages. Not surprisingly, the potential clauses of Mandinka can often be translated by future clauses in the other Manding languages, since in the languages that do not have a dedicated potential marker, it is not uncommon that potentiality is expressed by TAM forms whose primary function is the expression of future (see for example Vydrin (2019a) on Guinean Maninka di). However, in Mandinka, potential sì ~ sè contrasts with the dedicated future construction bé ...‑lá, and is consequently more clearly anchored in the modal domain than the future constructions that may constitute its translational equivalents in other languages. Example (44) illustrates the basic modal meaning of this sì ~ sè in Mandinka. For more details on sì ~ sè, readers are referred to Creissels & Sambou (2013: 76–80).
(44)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Níŋ
|
í
|
yé
|
wǒo
|
dómò,
|
à
|
sì
|
í
|
kónòo
|
dímîŋ.
|
|
if
|
2SG
|
CPL.TR
|
DEM
|
eat
|
3SG
|
POT
|
2SG
|
belly.D
|
hurt
|
|
‘If you eat this, it might cause tummy aches to you.’
|
102What concerns us here is that potential clauses with second person subjects are commonly used as a polite way of expressing commands. Commands formulated by means of potential clauses are presented as if they were rather proposals, advices or suggestions, as in (45).
(45)
|
Mandinka
|
|
Í
|
sí
|
jèe-môo-lú
|
sàláamú
|
ŋ́
|
ñè.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2SG
|
POT
|
there-person.D-PL
|
greet
|
1SG
|
for
|
|
|
|
|
103‘You might greet the people there for me.’
104> ‘Please, greet the people there for me!’
105It is cross-linguistically common that TAM forms or constructions whose basic meaning can be defined as future or incompletive are used to express commands, and this phenomenon is attested in Manding languages too, as observed by Vydrin (2019b: 91, 95).
106In this article, I have described the coding of directive speech acts and wishes in Manding languages within the frame of monoclausal constructions. In Manding languages, the subjunctive plays a prominent role in the expression of commands and wishes, in competition, however, with dedicated imperative and optative constructions. The main conclusions are as follows:
107– In Manding languages, dedicated imperative constructions are never obligatory, in the sense that direct commands can always be expressed by means of subjunctive clauses with a 2nd person subject, and when a dedicated imperative construction is also available, it is perceived as relatively rude in comparison with the subjunctive.
108– As regards the expression of wishes, an interesting particularity of Manding languages is that, even if they do not involve specific optative marking, the clauses expressing wishes (be they ordinary wishes in everyday life, of blessings as uttered in highly ritualized contexts) tend to be explicitly distinguished from clauses expressing directive speech acts by the systematic use of formulations with Álá ‘God’ in subject role.
109– Mandinka has a variant of the pan-Manding dedicated optative construction in which the desired state-of-affairs is encoded as a subjunctive clause, but in this variant of the optative construction, the sequence Álá màa (where màa is the optative marker) is being reanalyzed as an optative particle.
110AdvCOP adverbial copula
111CAUS causative
112CPL completive
113D default determiner
114DEM demonstrative
115FOC focus marker
116FUT future
117GEN genitive
118ICPL incompletive
119IMP imperative
120INF infinitive
121INTERJ interjection
122ITR intransitive
123NEG negative
124NegCOP negative copula
125NomCOP nominal copula
126OBLG obligative
127OPT optative
128PL plural
129POSTP postposition
130POT potential
131Q interrogative particle
132QUOT quotative
133REL relativizer
134SBJV subjunctive
135SG singular
136TR transitive
137VEN venitive
138VP verb phrase