Chapter 56: The prohibitive

Feature information for this chapter can be found in feature 56.

1. Introduction

The prohibitive is the negated counterpart of the affirmative imperative, as in Papiamentu No bai! ‘Don’t go!’. Only the singular prohibitive is considered here, i.e. prohibition addressed to a single addressee. The corresponding WALS chapter is Van der Auwera & al. (2005).

2. The values

We distinguish the following values:

exclshrdall
Normal imperative construction and normal negator45752
Normal imperative construction and special negator13417
Special imperative construction and normal negator8210
Special imperative construction and special negator112
Representation:74

The prohibitive may have the same form as the affirmative imperative (normal imperative construction) and the same sentential negative construction found in declarative sentences (normal negator) (value 1). This is the most widespread value.

(1)
a.
lu
look
ju-jɛ
2sg-nmlz
nau
now
Now look at yours! (affirmative imperative)
b.
ɛkɛ-jə
1sg-nmlz
mja
do
dida
that
ka
neg
Mine doesn't do that. (normal negator)
c.
bu
drink
so-fɛlɛ
so-much
ka
neg
Don't drink so much! (prohibitive)

Sometimes the prohibitive uses the normal imperative construction but a special negator (value 2). This occurs in five Ibero-Romance-based languages, in three English-based languages, in three Malay-based languages, in Afrikaans, Chinese Pidgin Russian, Juba Arabic, Michif, Pidgin Hawaiian, and in the bilingual mixed language Gurindji Kriol.

In Singapore Bazaar Malay the special negator jangan is used in prohibitive sentences, as opposed to the negator tak, which is found in declarative sentences; in Afrikaans, the special negator moenie is used instead of the first negator nie, and in Juba Arabic, it is the special negator máta which is used instead of the normal negator ma (but see example 6, Kinubi, which looks similar but was interpreted differently).

(2)
a.
Tengok!
look
Look! (affirmative imperative)
b.
Dia
3sg
tak
neg
ada
prog
kerja
work
sekarang.
now
He is not working now. (normal negator)
c.
Jangan
proh
lupa
forget
jumpa
meet
saya.
1sg
Don't forget to visit me. (prohibitive)
(3)
a.
Praat
speak
Xhosa,
Xhosa
asseblief!
please
Speak Xhosa, please! (affirmative imperative)
b.
Ek
1sg
praat
speak
nie
neg
Engels
English
nie.
neg
I don't speak English. (normal negation)
c.
Moenie
proh
Duits
German
praat
speak
nie!
neg
Don't speak German! (prohibitive)
(4)
a.
Ruwa!
go
Go!
b.
Bolís
police
ma
neg
bi-ásalo.
irr-ask
The police doesn't ask.
c.
Máta
proh.sg
bíga
become
zalán.
angry
Don't be angry!

The prohibitive may also use the same negator as in declarative sentences, but the prohibitive construction differs from the affirmative imperative (value 3). This value is relatively rare (ten languages). There are three possibilities in which this value may be realized. In the five Upper Guinea Portuguese-based creoles (Guinea-Bissau Kriyol, Casamancese Creole, and the three Cape Verdean varieties) in Cavite Chabacano, in Belizean Creole, and in Kinubi, the negator is used both in declarative and prohibitive sentences, but, in contrast to the affirmative imperative, the subject pronoun is obligatory in the prohibitive.

(5)
a.
Kantá!
sing
Sing! (affirmative imperative)
b.
Bu
2sg
ka
neg
kantá.
sing
You did not sing. (normal negator)
c.
Ka
neg
bu
2sg
kantá.
sing
Don't sing! (prohibitive)
(6)
a.
Rúa!
go
Go!.
b.
Íta
2sg
ma
neg
gi-rúa
tam-go
You don't go.
c.
Ma
neg
ta
2sg
rúa.
go
Don't go!

Another possibility illustrating value 3 is found exclusively in Lingala. In this language, the negator is used both in declarative and prohibitive sentences; however, in this case, the prohibitive construction differs from the affirmative imperative in that it does not use the imperative suffix (with a high tone, as opposed to the final vowel -a, with a low tone).

(7)
a.
Sál-á!
work-imp
Work! (affirmative imperative)
b.
O-sál-áki
2sg-work-pst
té.
neg
You did not work. (normal negator)
c.
Ko-sál-a
inf-work-fv
té!
neg
Don't work! (prohibitive)

The last subtype of value 3 occurs only in Pichi. In this language, the prohibitive uses the same negator no as in declarative sentences, but additionally, the subjunctive particle mek may head a prohibitive sentence; in such cases, the subject pronoun is obligatory.

(8)
a.
Laf!
laugh
Laugh! (affirmative imperative)
b.
Á
1sg.sbj
no
neg
laf.
laugh
I didn't laugh. (normal negator)
c.
Mek
sbjv
2sg
no
neg
laf!
laugh
Don't laugh! (prohibitive)

Value 4 (special negator and a special prohibitive construction) occurs only in Haitian Creole and in Mixed Ma’a/Mbugu. In Mixed Ma’a/Mbugu, the prohibitive uses a subject prefix, which is not the case in affirmative imperatives, and the negator used in the prohibitive sentence (si) differs from the one used in the declarative sentence (te).

(9)
a.
Líta
come
íʔi!
here
Come here! (affirmative imperative)
b.
Te-tú-ila-íye
neg-1pl-know-prf
ité
purp
hé-lo
16-have
vahe
people
vé-di-ye
2-stay-opt
iʔí.
here
We didn't know that there were people staying here. (normal negator)
c.
U-si-hlati
2sg-neg-close
lunige!
door
Don't close the door! (prohibitive)

In Haitian Creole, the other language exhibiting this value, the special prohibitive negator pinga may be used (as opposed to pa, which is used in declarative sentences); in this case, the subject pronoun is obligatory, which is not the case in affirmative imperatives.

3. Areal distribution

Value 1 (normal imperative construction and normal negator, found in 52 languages) is present everywhere, although this value is dominant in the Atlantic (32 languages), especially in the Caribbean. Value 2 (normal imperative and special negator) is predominant in all parts of Asia (13 out of 17 languages) but is almost absent from Africa (exceptions: Afrikaans and Juba Arabic) and the Americas (exceptions: Palenquero and Michif). Value 3 (11 languages) is concentrated on the African side of the Atlantic as well as in Central Africa, and value 4 occurs only in Mixed Ma’a/Mbugu (East Africa) and in Haitian Creole (Caribbean).

Except for value 3, the distribution of the four values in the WALS languages differs considerably from the distribution in the APiCS languages (value 1: 23% vs. 68%; value 2: 37% vs. 22%; value 3: 11% vs. 14%; value 4: 29% vs. 2%).