<p>I don't think there is any really reliable cross-linguistic labelling system that would include all of these. There are terms for most of them, but they're often used for only a few languages, and perhaps not very consistently. For someone who is created a conlang, they have flexibility then to adapt these terms for their language, however the important thing is to clearly describe in detail the full semantics of the language, rather than just assigning labels.</p>

<p>The broad category for all of these is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_modality" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>deontic modality</strong></a>, which covers the modality of how the speaker thinks things ought to be. Within deontic modality there are many subtypes. The <a href="https://glossary.sil.org/term/deontic-modality" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SIL Glossary</a> has a very useful section giving a hierarchical description of deontic modality.</p>

<p>English actually has a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verbs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">very large number of modal verbs</a>, with subtly different senses, so with examples from English we can illustrate a lot of the subtypes, even though they're usually not given clear labels. The English modals are however very complex, most of them being used in different contexts to mean very different things.</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The <strong>imperative</strong> is actually one of the least marked ways of issuing a directive/command. In English it is a structurally different way of forming a sentence, but in other languages it may have a more regular structure with a particular verb form that fits into a wider affix paradigm.</p></li>
<li><p><em>Should</em> is usually weaker than the imperative, giving a recommendation. Possible labels include <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortative" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>hortative</strong></a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositive_mood" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>propositive</strong></a>.</p></li>
<li><p><em>Have to</em>, <em>need to</em> and <em>must</em> can all be stronger than the imperative, but they also often imply that the person giving the instruction needs to plead to some extent with those they are instructing; an autocratic dictator would never tell their servants that they need to do something, they would simply tell them to do it (with an imperative sentence.) Labels include <a href="https://glossary.sil.org/term/precative-mood" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>precative</strong></a> for requests, and <a href="https://glossary.sil.org/term/directive-modality" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>directive</strong></a> and <a href="https://glossary.sil.org/term/obligative-mood" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>obligative</strong></a> for commands that emphasise obligation.</p></li>
<li><p>When <em>will</em> or <em>shall</em> are emphasised and stressed in English they are used to indicate a serious instruction, which sometimes sound almost sinister with an implied threat for those who disregard them: "You <em>will</em> do this... (or else!)" The label <a href="https://glossary.sil.org/term/commissive-modality" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>commissive</strong></a> is used for threats, but not exclusively, as it's also used for promises.</p></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-03T19:03:07.150Z
The distinction between "should" and "shall" can be clearly seen in legal terminology, especially in contract law. If an obligation is indicated with "should", it's treated almost as optional, and not doing it typically will not put them in breach. If an obligation is indicated as "shall" then they must carry out the obligation or be penalized or in breach of contract. "You should not use the company credit card for personal expenses" means it's discouraged. "You shall not use the company credit card for personal expenses" means your employment is on the line.
Keith Morrison
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-03T20:07:28.420Z
@KeithMorrison While you're spot-on, I wouldn't say legal terminology is the best place to take cues from when it comes to interpreting everyday English. A lot of words have much more specific, unchangeable definitions in legalese.
Sparksbet
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-02T11:14:44.677Z
2018-07-07T12:53:07.013Z
2018-07-07T12:53:07.013Z
curiousdannii
<p>I have found a conlang, Klyran, which has a rather interesting feature: multiple imperative moods. Quoting from <a href="http://planeshift.top-ix.org/pswiki/index.php?title=Klyros_Language#Grammatical_moods" rel="noreferrer">the documentation</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For imperative mood there are number of suffixes that correspond to different sort of request from begging to ordering with threat of killing in case of refusal. These suffixes can be omitted.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(For the case of an suffixless imperative form, a "default" form of the imperative mood is presumed, similar to a real-world imperative in meaning.)</p>

<p>While this part of the language has not been fully fleshed out (nobody yet has bothered to define the various imperative mood affixes) -- is this feature (multiple imperative moods) something that has existing terminology surrounding it?</p>

<terminology><tense-aspect-mood>
Is there existing terminology for distinguishing multiple imperative moods?
# Is there existing terminology for distinguishing multiple imperative moods?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-07-01)

I have found a conlang, Klyran, which has a rather interesting feature: multiple imperative moods. Quoting from [the documentation](http://planeshift.top-ix.org/pswiki/index.php?title=Klyros_Language#Grammatical_moods):

> For imperative mood there are number of suffixes that correspond to different sort of request from begging to ordering with threat of killing in case of refusal. These suffixes can be omitted.

(For the case of an suffixless imperative form, a "default" form of the imperative mood is presumed, similar to a real-world imperative in meaning.)

While this part of the language has not been fully fleshed out (nobody yet has bothered to define the various imperative mood affixes) -- is this feature (multiple imperative moods) something that has existing terminology surrounding it?

**Tags:** terminology, tense-aspect-mood

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-07-02. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

I don't think there is any really reliable cross-linguistic labelling system that would include all of these. There are terms for most of them, but they're often used for only a few languages, and perhaps not very consistently. For someone who is created a conlang, they have flexibility then to adapt these terms for their language, however the important thing is to clearly describe in detail the full semantics of the language, rather than just assigning labels.

The broad category for all of these is [**deontic modality**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_modality), which covers the modality of how the speaker thinks things ought to be. Within deontic modality there are many subtypes. The [SIL Glossary](https://glossary.sil.org/term/deontic-modality) has a very useful section giving a hierarchical description of deontic modality.

English actually has a [very large number of modal verbs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verbs), with subtly different senses, so with examples from English we can illustrate a lot of the subtypes, even though they're usually not given clear labels. The English modals are however very complex, most of them being used in different contexts to mean very different things.

* The **imperative** is actually one of the least marked ways of issuing a directive/command. In English it is a structurally different way of forming a sentence, but in other languages it may have a more regular structure with a particular verb form that fits into a wider affix paradigm.
* *Should* is usually weaker than the imperative, giving a recommendation. Possible labels include [**hortative**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortative) and [**propositive**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositive_mood).
* *Have to*, *need to* and *must* can all be stronger than the imperative, but they also often imply that the person giving the instruction needs to plead to some extent with those they are instructing; an autocratic dictator would never tell their servants that they need to do something, they would simply tell them to do it (with an imperative sentence.) Labels include [**precative**](https://glossary.sil.org/term/precative-mood) for requests, and [**directive**](https://glossary.sil.org/term/directive-modality) and [**obligative**](https://glossary.sil.org/term/obligative-mood) for commands that emphasise obligation.
* When *will* or *shall* are emphasised and stressed in English they are used to indicate a serious instruction, which sometimes sound almost sinister with an implied threat for those who disregard them: "You *will* do this... (or else!)" The label [**commissive**](https://glossary.sil.org/term/commissive-modality) is used for threats, but not exclusively, as it's also used for promises.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: The distinction between "should" and "shall" can be clearly seen in legal terminology, especially in contract law. If an obligation is indicated with "should", it's treated almost as optional, and not doing it typically will not put them in breach. If an obligation is indicated as "shall" then they must carry out the obligation or be penalized or in breach of contract. "You should not use the company credit card for personal expenses" means it's discouraged. "You shall not use the company credit card for personal expenses" means your employment is on the line.  
> **username_3**: @KeithMorrison While you're spot-on, I wouldn't say legal terminology is the best place to take cues from when it comes to interpreting everyday English. A lot of words have much more specific, unchangeable definitions in legalese.  

---

