Douglas Krupka refers me to the following:
Although in discussion of the imperative clause type it is routinely denied that it could ever feature a past tense, imperatives in the past tense do exist. Specifically, past imperatives can be found in (Northern) Dutch and Frisian, many speakers of which can produce and understand sentences like (1) and (2).
(1) At liever eens wat minder! (Dutch)
ate rather once somewhat less
The English equivalent seems odd to me, but you would think it is hard to translate into a language which does not have imperatives in the past tense. Best to put the English out of your mind and focus on the:
At liever eens wat minder!
You can do a Google search on the concept here.
Strange that this would be so difficult to translate into English given how closely related it is to both Dutch and Frisian.
Isn’t there anyone who speaks dutch that can give a better translation than the literal word for word translation? What does that sentence mean?
Never mind, its in the link:
“At liever eens wat minder! (Dutch)
ate rather once somewhat less
‘Better eat a bit less.’
[said to someone that has just announced they’re going to get some liposuction
done]
(2) Reed dan ook niet zo hard! (Dutch)
drove then also not so fast
‘You should not have driven so fast.’
[said by a car passenger to the driver, who nearly caused a crash while
speeding, but has already slowed down]”
The article’s “better eat a bit less” probably should be “you shouldn’t have eaten so much” or “you should have eaten less.”
So now I don’t get what the big deal is. Its just a way of saying “you should have done this” or “you should not have done that.” So the Dutch have a verb tense that lets them not need to say “should have” in order to express that idea. Why is this significant?
The sentences are not entirely the same.
[At liever eens wat minder] is an imperative sentence about the future: it means [You should stop eating as much (as you currently do)] Although I would never use it, I know people who would.
[Reed dan ook niet zo hard] is more a sentence about the past, without much imperative content: it means something like [But then, you shouldn't have driven that fast anyway]. I can perhaps imagine using this sentence myself.
If you’re not sure why you chose your spouse, then I say, “Don’t have married for money, have married for love.”
Gotta say I agree with Doug, the constructions seem meant to be understood as past subjunctive (you should have). While the construction literally translates to past imperitive, it doesn’t seem like that is how they are understood. Of course I don’t speak Dutch so…
Also used (in English) by the Homestarrunner:
So, best thing to do is… to go back and not listen to that message, and then we’ve got nothing to worry about.
What’s the point in telling someone not to have or to have done something when the event has passed? In fact, don’t we have a whole series of ideas associated with how worthless the “told you so” is — e.g., “20/20 hindsight is easy” etc. Is there something in Anglo-American culture that makes this activity seem particularly worthless? It seems that the hardworking, rational Dutch might might want to have the complete set of verbs just for completeness sake but I wonder if there is some lesson-learned incentive whereas in the English world we either charge on without thinking or assume everyone knows?
One thing that surprises me about this is that Frisian is taxonomically one of English’s closest linguistic relatives [OW Robinson 2004]. If there is any language that ought to have inherited its peculiarities, it would be ours.
“yelling something to the effect of ‘Have Died!’” Or maybe “Die already!”
Maybe this is why some people think the concept of original sin makes sense?
Yes, wlu2009 and Doug have it spot on. My Dutch is not what it was a decade ago, but my Polder Sense would translate this into the past subjunctive:
“It were better had you eaten a bit less”
Or, in less awkward sounding modern (non-subjunctive English):
“I would have been better to eat a bit less”
As a Frisian speaker, I would suggest:
You weren’t to have eaten so much.
You weren’t to have driven so fast.
I can imagine preparing myself to read yesterday’s as-yet-unknown sports results and muttering to my team: “Don’t have lost again”.
This is an interesting topic, but I agree with others that it is not significant. While past-tense-like words can be used in these constructions, it is logically makes no sense to give a past tense command. (Ate!) The best you can do is use not past-tense, but the past SUBJUNCTIVE. That is, making a statement that is contrary to fact. As others have pointed out:
“You shouldn’t have eaten so much”
Which is a much more apt translation of “At liever eens wat minder!” than the one provided. In my opinion, the mistranslation above is a good example of the idiomatic way that separate languages use grammar to convey meaning.
By the by, several germanic languages use “once” as a filler/softener word.
e.g.: Komm einmal her! lit. trans: Come once here. idiomatic trans.: [Why don't you] come here.
Comments on this entry are closed.