Hubbry Logo
Optative moodOptative moodMain
Open search
Optative mood
Community hub
Optative mood
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Optative mood
Optative mood
Optative mood
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The optative mood (/ˈɒptətɪv/ OP-tə-tiv or /ɒpˈteɪtɪv/ op-TAY-tiv;[1] abbreviated OPT) is a grammatical mood that indicates a wish or hope regarding a given action. It is a superset of the cohortative mood and is closely related to the subjunctive mood but is distinct from the desiderative mood. English has no morphological optative, but various constructions impute an optative meaning. Examples of languages with a morphological optative mood are Ancient Greek, Albanian, Armenian, Georgian, Friulian, Kazakh, Kurdish, Navajo, Old Prussian, Old Persian, Sanskrit, Turkish, and Yup'ik.[2]

English

[edit]

Although English has no morphological optative, analogous constructions impute an optative meaning, including the use of certain modal verbs:

  • May you have a long life!
  • Would that I were younger.
  • So mote it be.

Periphrastic constructions include if only together with a subjunctive complement:

  • If only I were rich!
  • I would sing if only I weren't tone deaf.

The optative mood can also be expressed elliptically:

  • (May) God save the Queen!
  • (May you) Have a nice day.
  • (May) God bless America.

The cohortative verb phrases let's (or let us) represent a syntactical mood as a subset of the optative mood:

  • Let's try it.
  • Let us pray.

Indo-European languages

[edit]

Proto-Indo-European

[edit]

The optative is one of the four original moods of Proto-Indo-European (the other three being the indicative mood, the subjunctive mood, and the imperative mood). However, many Indo-European languages lost the inherited optative, either as a formal category, or functional, i.e. merged it with the subjunctive, or even replaced the subjunctive with optative.

Albanian

[edit]

In Albanian, the optative (mënyra dëshirore, lit. "wishing mood") expresses wishes, and is also used in curses and swearing.

  • Wish: U bëfsh 100 vjeç! (May you reach/live 100 years)
  • Curse: Të marrtë djalli! (May the devil take you)

Ancient Greek

[edit]
Main article: Optative (Ancient Greek)

In Ancient Greek, the optative is used to express wishes and potentiality in independent clauses (but also has other functions, such as contrary-to-fact expressions in the present[3]). In dependent clauses (purpose, temporal, conditional, and indirect speech), the optative is often used under past-tense main verbs. The optative expressing a wish is on its own or preceded by the particle εἴθε (eithe). The optative expressing potentiality is always accompanied by the untranslatable particle ἄν in an independent clause and is on its own in a dependent clause.

Εἴθε

Eíthe

βάλλοις

bállois

Εἴθε βάλλοις

Eíthe bállois

"If only you would throw."

Χαίροιμι

Khaíroimi

ἄν,

án,

εἰ

ei

πορεύοισθε

poreúoisthe

Χαίροιμι ἄν, εἰ πορεύοισθε

Khaíroimi án, ei poreúoisthe

"I would be glad, if you could travel."

In Koine Greek, the optative began to be replaced by the subjunctive; in the New Testament, it was primarily used in set phrases.

Its endings are characterized by a diphthong such as οι (oi) in thematic verbs and ι in athematic verbs.

Germanic languages

[edit]

Some Germanic verb forms often known as subjunctives are actually descendants of the Proto-Indo-European optative. The Gothic present subjunctive nimai "may he take!" may be compared to Ancient Greek present optative φέροι "may he bear!"[4] That the old Indo-European optative is represented by the subjunctive is clear in Gothic, which lost the old, "true" Indo-European subjunctive that represented a fixed desire and intent. Its function was adopted by the present form of the optative that reflected only possibilities, unreal things and general wishes at first.

A Germanic innovation of form and functionality was the past tense of the optative, which reflected the irrealis of past and future. This is shown by evidence in the Gothic language, Old High German, Old English, and Old Norse. This use of the (new) optative past tense as an irrealis mood started apparently after the Proto-Germanic past tense that had been once the perfect tense supplanted the Indo-German aorist (compare Euler 2009:184).

A somewhat archaic Dutch saying, 'Leve de Koning' ("long live the king") is another example of how the optative still is present in Germanic languages today.

Latin

[edit]

Likewise in Latin, the newer subjunctive is based on the Indo-European optative. With this change in Latin, several old subjunctive forms became future forms. Accordingly, the prohibitive (negative desire and prohibition) was formed with the combination of *ne + verb form in the optative present.

Romanian

[edit]

In Romanian, the conditional and optative moods have identical forms, thus being commonly referred to as the conditional-optative mood.

Sanskrit

[edit]

In Sanskrit, the optative is formed by adding the secondary endings to the verb stem. It sometimes expresses wishes, requests and commands: bhares "may you bear" (active voice) and bharethās "may you bear [for yourself]" (middle). It also expresses possibilities (e.g. kadācid goṣabdena budhyeta "he might perhaps wake up due to the bellowing of cows")[5] or doubt and uncertainty (e.g., katham vidyām Nalam "how would I be able to recognize Nala?"). The optative is sometimes used instead of a conditional mood.

Basque

[edit]

Zuberoan dialect has a special mood, called Botiboa (Votive), and unknown to the other dialects, used for making wishes. The auxiliary verb, whose characteristic is the prefix ai-, always precedes the main verb and, in negative wishes, also the negative adverb ez (meaning no, not):

  • Ailü ikusi! ('If she/he had only seen it/him/her!').
  • Ailü ez ikusi! ('If he/she hadn't only seen her/him/it!').

In Standard Basque, like in all the other dialects, such wishes are made with the particle ahal, and the future indicative tense:

  • Arazoa ikusiko ahal du! ('I wish he/she saw the problem').
  • Ez ahal du ikusiko! ('I hope she/he will not see her/him/it'): in negative wishes, the particle ahal goes between the negative adverb ez and the verbal auxiliary.

All the dialects have verbal forms in the imperative mood (Agintera), even for commands concerning the 3rd person, both singular and plural:

  • Liburua ikus beza! ('May he/she see the book!').
  • Liburuak ikus bitzate! ('May they see the books!').

For commands concerning the 1st person, present subjunctive forms are used:

  • Liburua ikus dezadan! ('Let me see the book! —it is not asking any listener for permission to see that book, but a personal wish').
  • Liburuak ikus ditzagun! ('Let's see the books!').

Finnish

[edit]

In Finnish, the optative or the second imperative, is archaic, mainly appearing in poetry, and used in suppletion with the first imperative. It is formed using the suffixes -ko- and -kö-, depending on vowel harmony, whereas the first imperative uses the suffixes -ka- and -kä-, both cases subjected to consonant gradation; for instance, kävellös (thou shalt walk) is the active voice second person singular in present optative of the verb kävellä (to walk), and ällös kävele is the negative (don’t walk). (The corresponding first imperative forms are kävele and älä kävele.)[6]

Altogether there can be constructed 28 verb inflections in the optative, complete with active and passive voice, present and perfect, three person forms both in singular and plural and a formal plural form. Most, if not all, of these forms are, however, utterly rare and are not familiar to non-professionals. Only some expressions have remained in day-to-day speech; for instance, one can be heard to say ollos hyvä instead of ole hyvä ("you're welcome" or "here you go"). This form carries an exaggerated, jocular connotation.

Optative formality can be expressed with the 1st and the 2nd imperative. For example, the ninth Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with Älköön ketään pidätettäkö mielivaltaisesti, "Not anyone shall be arrested arbitrarily", where älköön pidätettäkö "shall not be arrested" is the imperative of ei pidätetä "is not arrested". (Also, using the conditional mood -isi- in conjunction with the clitic -pa yields an optative meaning, e.g. olisinpa "if I only were". Here, it is evident that the wish is not, and probably will not be, fulfilled.)

Japanese

[edit]

The Japanese optative is formed by using a conditional such as ba (-ば) or tara (-たら). For example, "I wish there were more time" is expressed literally as "If there were time, it would be good." (時間があれば良いのに Jikan ga areba ii noni.), where aru, the verb expressing existence, is in the ba conditional form areba. Ii is the present (or non-past) tense of "good," but if expressed in the past tense yokatta よかった, the sentence expresses regret instead of a wish or hope. The above example would become "If there had been time, it would have been good" 時間があればよかったのに, as might be said of an opportunity missed because of a lack of time.

The optative mood can also be expressed by suffixing 様に yō ni to the verb, typically the polite form. For instance, "may you have a pleasant trip" 楽しい旅になります様に.

Hebrew

[edit]

Although Biblical Hebrew does not have a dedicated optative mood like Ancient Greek or Sanskrit, it frequently expresses optative-like constructions through rhetorical questions, especially those beginning with the interrogative pronoun מי (mi, meaning "who"). These are often used to convey longing or wishful thinking, particularly in poetic and prophetic contexts.

An example of optative-like construct in Hebrew is מי יתן (mi yiten), literally "Who will give?" This phrase is used to express a deep, often unattainable desire in Job 6:8:

  • מי יתן תבוא שאלתי (mi yiten tavo she'elati) "Oh, that my request might come to pass."

This conveys the speaker's longing for something beyond their control, functioning similarly to the optative mood in other languages.

Another example is in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 10b): מי ישים (mi yasim), meaning "Who will place?" This phrase appears in contexts of rhetorical longing:

  • מי ישימני מצע תחתיך לעולם הבא (mi yasimeni matz'a tachat'cha le'olam haba) "Who will place me as a mat under you in the World to Come?"

These expressions convey humility and the hope for something only a higher power could grant, akin to the optative mood in expressing desires or hypotheticals.

These rhetorical questions in Hebrew serve a similar function to the optative mood, providing a way to express wishes, hopes, or desires that cannot be directly commanded or expected.[7]

Mongolian

[edit]

The Mongolian optative or "wishing form" (Хүсэх Хэлбэр) is used largely to "tell another person about a wish not connected to the listener".[8] Colloquially, however, it can also be used for a wishful second person imperative. It is formed by joining the suffix -аасай/-ээсэй/-оосой to the root stem of the verb. e.g. Үзэх= to see. үз—ээсэй.

Миний

Minii

дүнг

düng

ээж

eej

үзээсэй

üzeesei.

Миний дүнг ээж үзээсэй

Minii düng eej üzeesei.

"If only mum could see my results."

It can also be used to form wishes in the past tense.

Чи

Chi

ирсэн

irsen

баиж

baij

ч

ch

болоосой

boloosoi.

Чи ирсэн баиж ч болоосой

Chi irsen baij ch boloosoi.

"If only you had come."

Sumerian

[edit]

In Sumerian, the optative of the 1st person is formed differently from the other persons:

Person Designation Example (Sumerian) Translation
1. Cohortative/hortative ga-na-b-dug I want to say it to him/her
2./3. Precative ḫe-mu-ù-zu You should experience it

Thereby, take note that the "normal" indicator of the 1st person in the cohortative (would be a suffix -en) is mostly omitted, as with the cohortative prefix, the 1st person is already expressed. In the case of the precative, the personal indicator has to be used to differentiate between the 2nd and 3rd person.

Turkish

[edit]

The optative in Turkish is part of the wish mood (dilek kipi) which reflects the command, desire, necessity, or wish. It has several semantic nuances. For instance, the word for "to come" (infinitive: gelmek) is modified in the optative to geleyim. This creates also a one-word sentence and means according to the context

  • I may come.
  • I come (sometime).
  • I want to come (sometime).
  • I should (sometime) come.

Desire mood

[edit]

Takes the -a or -e suffix.

geleyim, kalasınız
may [I] come, may [you] stay

Wish-conditional mood

[edit]

It takes the -sa or -se suffix. The following example reflect a wish:

gelse, kalsanız
if [he/she/it] would come, if [you] would stay

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Optative mood

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The optative mood is a in that expresses a wish, hope, or desire on the part of the speaker for an action to occur, often without implying its actual realization. It is typically realized through dedicated verbal inflections or specific constructions, distinguishing it from related categories like the subjunctive (which often marks subordinate hypotheticals) or the imperative (which conveys commands). This mood is most prominently attested in , including , , and Albanian, where it frequently appears in blessings, curses, prayers, or exclamations of regret. Globally, the optative is a rare inflectional category, documented in only 48 out of 319 languages surveyed, with concentrations in regions such as the , northern , and . In these languages, optative forms must apply across all persons and are semantically focused on the speaker's unattainable or hypothetical desires, rather than participant-internal wishes (as in desideratives) or directives. For instance, in , the optative conveys hypothetical actions through three aspects—present (ongoing), (simple), and perfect (completed)—without temporal reference or augment, as in expressions like "May the gods grant this." In contrast, its survival in later ancient contexts, such as Greek, highlights uses for realizable wishes in main clauses, underscoring its adaptability across historical stages of a language. The optative's typological significance lies in its role as a dedicated marker of illocutionary force for wishes, often overlapping with irrealis moods but uniquely tied to speaker perspective. Languages without a distinct optative may express similar semantics via particles, adverbials, or subjunctive forms, but the presence of an inflectional optative provides a morphologically explicit means of encoding desire. This mood's decline in many Indo-European branches reflects broader shifts toward analytic constructions, yet it persists in specialized functions in languages like Albanian, where it exhibits unique morphosyntactic traits.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition

The optative mood is a in that expresses the speaker's wishes, desires, optations, blessings, curses, or potentialities, without asserting the reality of the . It encodes bouletic modality, focusing on the speaker's volition or hope for a situation to hold, often in irrealis or hypothetical contexts. This mood is distinct from epistemic modalities like possibility or necessity, emphasizing non-factual desires rather than judgments of likelihood. In terms of key functions, the optative conveys contingency and projection into unrealized scenarios, such as prayers or counterfactual hopes, adding an element of uncertainty to desired outcomes. It differs from the indicative mood, which asserts factual statements or events as actual, by treating the content as merely wished-for rather than true. Compared to the , which often signals doubt, possibility, or non-factuality in conditional or subordinate clauses, the optative more narrowly highlights volitive expressions like personal desires or benedictions. Morphologically, the optative is typically realized through dedicated verb inflections, such as specific suffixes or endings that alter the stem to indicate the modal value. In some languages, it employs particles, auxiliary constructions, or suppletive forms to mark the mood, ensuring it applies across persons and tenses without relying on indicative paradigms. For instance, in analytic systems, an auxiliary may combine with the main verb to form the optative, as seen in certain . Representative examples illustrate its basic formation and use across languages. In English, which lacks a dedicated optative, surrogates like "May it rain!" express a wish for using the "may" followed by the base form. In Kumyk (a Turkic language), the optative "jav-ɣaj edi" similarly conveys "May it rain!", with the suffix -ɣaj marking the mood and edi as an auxiliary. French employs subject-auxiliary inversion in "Puisse-t-il pleuvoir!" to form "May it rain!", highlighting the optative's in softening or projecting desires. These constructions demonstrate how the optative prioritizes the speaker's hope over imperative commands or factual assertions.

Distinctions from Other Moods

The optative mood fundamentally differs from the indicative mood in its expression of unrealized wishes or desires, rather than factual statements or events that are presented as actual or certain. Whereas the indicative mood is used to assert realis propositions—describing actions, states, or events that the speaker treats as true or occurred—the optative conveys irrealis volitive functions, such as hopes or benedictions, without implying realization. In contrast to the , the optative emphasizes pure desire or wish fulfillment, often independent of broader hypothetical, conditional, or subordinate contexts that characterize the subjunctive. The subjunctive typically marks syntactic subordination or epistemic , such as in conditional clauses or after verbs of , whereas the optative focuses on the speaker's volition for an outcome, though overlaps occur in languages where irrealis functions blend the two moods. For instance, while a subjunctive might express "if it were to rain" in a conditional scenario, an optative could wish "may it rain" as a standalone . The optative also contrasts with the , which issues direct commands or requests typically directed at second-person subjects, by instead articulating third-person or general wishes that do not demand immediate action from the addressee. Imperatives enforce obligations or prohibitions, often in , whereas optatives invoke possibilities or blessings without coercive force, such as in prayers or imprecations. In languages lacking a distinct optative mood, such as English, optative functions are often surrogated through modal verbs or constructions like "may" for wishes (e.g., "May you succeed") or "would that" for counterfactual desires (e.g., "Would that it were true"). These periphrastic expressions blend indicative or subjunctive elements to approximate the optative's volitive nuance without dedicated morphology.

Typological Overview

The optative mood, which expresses wishes, hopes, or potentialities, exhibits a notable prevalence in ancient languages across diverse families, including Indo-European (e.g., Ancient Greek and Sanskrit). In contrast, optative forms are rare in modern languages; a survey of 319 languages identifies only 48 with an inflectional optative, concentrated in families like Nakh-Daghestanian, Northwest Caucasian, and certain Tibeto-Burman and Munda languages of northern India and Nepal, while absent from most of Europe, the Americas, Australia, and Africa. Formation of the optative varies typologically: synthetic marking through affixation predominates in fusional and agglutinative languages (e.g., endings in ), while analytic periphrases using auxiliaries or occur in some (e.g., Kumyk's + auxiliary construction). In isolating languages, equivalents often rely on particles rather than , as in Mao Naga's use of the particle peno to convey wishes without altering the verb form. This particle-based strategy highlights a cross-linguistic pattern where optative functions adapt to the language's morphological profile, from highly inflected synthetic systems to more analytic or particle-dependent ones. Languages lacking a dedicated optative mood typically express similar notions through subjunctive forms, conditional constructions, or lexical means, such as modal verbs like English may for wishes or periphrastic expressions like I wish clauses. For example, Russian relies on conditionals or the subjunctive to convey optative-like counterfactuals, bypassing specialized . Across languages with the mood, functional universals include its primary use in prayers, blessings, and counterfactual scenarios, often in irrealis contexts to denote non-actualized desires. In , the optative shows a trend toward decline and simplification, as seen in languages like Kumyk where once-independent forms now require , reflecting broader grammatical streamlining in modern usage.

Historical Origins

Proto-Indo-European Optative

The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) optative mood was reconstructed via comparative linguistics by identifying systematic correspondences in verbal forms across daughter languages, particularly Greek, Sanskrit, and Indo-Iranian. This reconstruction relies on shared morphological patterns, such as the use of secondary personal endings (e.g., *-m, *-s, *-t for singular) combined with optative-specific suffixes, distinguishing it from primary endings in indicative moods. For athematic verbs, the optative suffix is *-yeh₁- / -ih₁-, featuring ablaut where the full grade -yeh₁- appears in singular forms and the zero grade -ih₁- in plural, often influenced by laryngeals that affect vowel quality in reflexes like Sanskrit -yā- or Greek -oiēn. Thematic optatives, in contrast, incorporate the thematic vowel o with the suffix -ih₁-, yielding forms like -o-ih₁- that simplify to *-oi- / -oiē- in many branches, as seen in Greek pher-oi from PIE bʰér-oi. In , the optative primarily expressed wishes, potentiality (potentialis), and benedictions, often conveying hypothetical or desired actions rather than factual ones. Evidence for these functions draws from Greek, where optatives denote wishes (e.g., eíēn 'would that I were'), Sanskrit precative optatives for blessings (e.g., bháyyas 'may there be'), and Hittite potentialis uses (e.g., man- 'may he remain'). These roles highlight the optative's modal nuance, bridging indicative certainty and subjunctive futurity, with subordinate clause usage further supported by Balto-Slavic imperatives derived from optative bases. Phonologically, the optative distinguished athematic and thematic paradigms, with athematic forms relying on root ablaut and the *-yeh₁- / -ih₁- suffix for accent shifts, while thematic ones integrated the o-vowel to maintain stem integrity. Irregular verbs often exhibited suppletive optatives, particularly in sigmatic aorist stems, where Sanskrit and Avestan replace expected forms with root aorists (e.g., Avestan vainīt̰ from a suppletive base). A representative example is the reconstructed 3rd singular thematic optative bʰéretoi ('may he carry'), derived from the root *bʰer- *'to carry' with secondary ending -t and suffix -oi-, illustrating a wish for action as in potential sentences.

Reconstruction and Evidence

The reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) optative mood employs the comparative method, systematically aligning cognate verbal forms across Indo-European daughter languages to posit ancestral morphology. This approach identifies shared suffixes and endings in languages like Ancient Greek (e.g., -οι-/-αι-), Sanskrit (-yāt/-īḥ), and Latin (-am/-ās), leading to the inferred PIE athematic optative suffix *-yeh₁- / *-ih₁- paired with secondary personal endings such as *-m, *-s, *-t. Key evidence derives from fragmentary attestations in early branches, including Avestan forms with *-yā- / *-ī- suffixes that preserve optative-like potentiality and wish functions, and potential laryngeal traces in disyllabic sequences like *-yaɁ-am. In contrast, Hittite lacks a dedicated optative, instead using modal particles such as *man (possibly grammaticalized from a conjunction and influenced by Akkadian), suggesting the mood may postdate the Anatolian divergence or have been lost early. Internal reconstruction supplements this through ablaut analysis, revealing the optative's characteristic quantitative apophony—full grade *-yeh₁- in singulars and zero grade *-ih₁- in plurals—which distinguishes it from other verbal categories and aids in hypothesizing pre-attested variations. Scholarly debates center on the optative's status as a primary PIE category or a derivation from the subjunctive, with its consistent use of secondary endings (contrasting the subjunctive's primary endings) indicating possible post-primary after the Anatolian-Tocharian split. The plays a crucial role in vowel reconstructions, positing *h₁ in the suffix to account for lengthenings in Greek -ey- and long vowels, as well as hiatus formations in Indo-Iranian. Milestones in this reconstruction include Karl Brugmann's 1897 analysis in the Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik, which synthesized Greek and data to outline the PIE verbal system including the optative, and Calvert Watkins' 1969 contributions to the PIE verbal morphology, emphasizing syntactic and ablaut evidence for modal categories.

Optative in Indo-European Languages

Ancient Greek

In , the optative mood expresses wishes, potentiality, and hypothetical situations, serving as a distinct category alongside the indicative, subjunctive, imperative, and . It is particularly prevalent in for poetic wishes and in prose for nuanced hypotheticals and subordinate constructions, reflecting a synthetic richness that conveys possibility or desirability without asserting fact. The mood's forms derive from Proto-Indo-European optative elements, adapted into Greek verbal paradigms. The optative is formed by adding specific suffixes and endings to the verb stem, distinguishing between athematic and thematic verbs as well as active and middle voices. For thematic verbs, the present and future optatives use the suffix -οι- or -ι- followed by primary-like endings such as -μι (1st singular), -ς (2nd singular), - (3rd singular), -μεν (1st plural), -τε (2nd plural), and -ντ (3rd plural) in the active voice, yielding forms like λύσ-οι-μι ("I might loose") or φαν-οῖ-μεν ("we might appear"). Athematic verbs, such as εἰμί ("to be"), employ -ιη- before lighter endings and -ι- before heavier ones, resulting in paradigms like εἴη-μι ("I might be") or ἱστα-ίη-ς ("you might stand"). Secondary optatives, used in past-tense contexts without augment, follow similar patterns but align with sequence of tenses rules, while aorist optatives insert -σαι- for sigmatic stems (e.g., λύσαι-μι) and perfect optatives draw from the weak reduplicated stem (e.g., τετύχη-ι-μι). Middle voice forms parallel these, with endings like -οίμην or -οίτο (e.g., λυσαίμην, "I might loose for myself"). Key functions include expressing wishes for future or desirable outcomes, often standalone or introduced by particles like εἴθε ("would that") or εἰ γάρ ("if only"), with μή for negation. In purpose clauses, the optative appears after secondary main verbs with conjunctions like ἵνα or ὡς to indicate intended results (e.g., after an imperfect, "so that [optative]"). It also features in indirect statements and reported speech following secondary tenses, conveying remote or hypothetical content, and in conditional clauses for less vivid future or past general scenarios. Syntactically, the optative often pairs with the particle ἄν to form the potential optative, denoting what might or would happen, typically in main clauses or apodoses of conditions, with οὐ for (e.g., ποιήσαι-μ᾽ ἄν, "I would do"). This construction emphasizes epistemic possibility, contrasting with the subjunctive's stronger futurity, and is common in deliberative or polite requests. In , it integrates with epic formulas for wishes, while usage favors it in hypothetical reasoning. Examples abound in classical texts. In the Iliad, Achilles wishes retribution with τίσειαν Δαναοὶ ἐμὰ δάκρυα σοῖσι βέλεσσι (1.42: "May the Danaans repay my tears with your arrows"), using athematic optatives for emotional intensity. Another Homeric wish appears in Odyssey 4.453: μὴ γὰρ ὅ γʼ ἔλθοι ("Never may he come"), negated with μή. In Platonic dialogue, the Apology employs potential optatives for hypotheticals, as in 30c where Socrates muses on what one might say or do in a supposed scenario, underscoring philosophical contingency. By the Koine Greek period, the optative declined sharply, becoming rare in everyday prose and nearly absent in the New Testament except in fixed expressions like μὴ γένοιτο ("may it not be," Romans 6:2), as the subjunctive absorbed many of its modal functions.

Sanskrit

In Sanskrit, the optative mood, known as the vidhi-liṅga, expresses wishes, potential actions, blessings, and prohibitions, retaining features inherited from the Proto-Indo-European optative. This mood is morphologically distinct, employing specific mode-signs and secondary personal endings applied to verb stems. Thematic optatives, derived from stems ending in -a, incorporate the mode-sign -ī, which contracts with the stem vowel to form -e-, followed by endings such as -yāt (third person singular active, e.g., bhavet "may it be") and -yātām (third person dual active). Athematic optatives, based on root or non-a stems, use the mode-sign -yā- in the active (e.g., syām from √as "I might be") or -ī- in the middle voice (e.g., juhvīya "I might sacrifice"), with endings like -īya (first person singular middle). Precative forms, a specialized optative subtype, insert -s- before the endings for intensified wishes, such as bhūyāsam (third person singular active "may he become"). Functionally, the optative in appears prominently in hymns and rituals for blessings (e.g., bhávatu "may it become" in Rigvedic prayers invoking divine favor) and prohibitions when negated with mā (e.g., mā bhujema "let us not enjoy"). It also conveys potentiality, indicating contingent or desirable outcomes in subordinate clauses, as in jīveya "I might live." In benedictive contexts, it softens commands into polite requests or permissions, aligning with its role in expressing volition without full indicative certainty. Historically, the optative holds greater prominence in early Vedic texts like the , where it occurs frequently in independent clauses for invocations and comprises root aorist forms absent in later stages (e.g., four instances in the oldest layers). By Classical , its use diminishes, becoming largely confined to potential and benedictive senses in dependent clauses, with the subjunctive often supplanting it and precative forms more standardized. This reduction reflects broader simplification of the modal system from Vedic to post-Vedic periods.

Latin

In Latin, the optative mood is not expressed through distinct verbal endings, as the language inherited from Proto-Indo-European but ultimately lost a separate optative paradigm early in its development; instead, the subjunctive mood, particularly its present tense form known as the jussive subjunctive, fulfills optative functions to convey wishes, hopes, or desires. For instance, the form dicat (from dīcō, dīcere) serves as "may he speak" or "let him speak," employing the standard subjunctive morphology without any unique optative markers. This substitution arose because the Latin subjunctive absorbed the semantic roles of the lost optative, including volitive (commanding) and optative (wishing) nuances, resulting in a partial merger where the subjunctive handles both hypothetical and wish-based expressions. The primary use of this optative subjunctive appears in independent clauses to express wishes, often introduced by utinam ("would that" or "if only") for emphasis, with the present subjunctive indicating a possible or hoped-for outcome in the present or , the for unfulfilled wishes in the present, and the for regrets about the past. Examples include Utinam veniat! ("May he come!" or "Would that he come!"), using the present subjunctive veniat for an attainable wish, or Utinam ne venisset! ("Would that he had not come!"), with the venisset for an impossible past regret. In , this frequently conveys elevated or emotional wishes, as in Horace's Odes where plural forms like vivant express collective hopes, such as in communal toasts or invocations. It also extends to indirect questions and purpose clauses, where the subjunctive implies a desired outcome, blending optative intent with subordinate functionality. Classical authors exemplify this optative subjunctive in rhetorical and narrative contexts. In Virgil's Aeneid, Dido uses it to voice longing: atque utinam rex ipse Nōtō compulsus eōdem / adforet Aenēas (1.575–576), translating to "And would that the king himself, Aeneas, driven by that same south wind, were here," highlighting a wistful potential presence. Cicero employs it for personal or deliberative wishes, as in Ad Familiares 12.3: utinam haberem... darem ("Would that I had... I would give"), expressing hypothetical generosity in correspondence. These instances underscore the mood's role in prose rhetoric and epic poetry, where it adds emotional depth without altering core subjunctive forms. By , the optative function was fully absorbed into the subjunctive, with no remnants of a separate mood; as the language evolved toward Romance varieties, subjunctive uses for wishes persisted but simplified amid broader mood erosion, such as the indicative's encroachment on subjunctive territory in spoken registers. This integration marked the complete merger, rendering the optative indistinguishable from other subjunctive applications in texts like those of Augustine or legal inscriptions.

Germanic Languages

In the earliest attested Germanic language, Gothic, the optative mood survives as a distinct category, inherited from Proto-Indo-European and often termed the "subjunctive" in traditional Germanic descriptions, though it retains optative functions such as expressing wishes, prayers, and potentialities. This mood is prominently featured in Bishop Ulfilas' fourth-century Bible translation, where it accounts for approximately 36.8% of verbal forms used in imperative-like contexts, particularly for eternal commands and divine pleas. For instance, the form nasei in Matthew 8:25 ("frauja, nasei unsis" – "Lord, save us") conveys a wish requiring divine intervention, while gibais in Matthew 5:42 illustrates a general moral exhortation ("to him who is asking of thee be giving"). The Gothic optative is formed with the suffix -i- (from PIE -ī-), as in bairai ("may he/she carry"), and it contrasts with the indicative by marking unreality or volition, preserving an archaic layer not fully merged in other Germanic branches. During the middle stages of Germanic development, the synthetic optative largely merged with the subjunctive mood across West and North Germanic languages, leading to its gradual loss as a distinct category and replacement by subjunctive forms for optative purposes like wishes. In Old English, the subjunctive evolved from this optative heritage to express desires and hortatives, often in independent clauses; for example, wære from wesan ("to be") appears in wishes like "God us gerihtlæce" ("May God correct us"), reflecting unreality or volition without a separate optative paradigm. Similarly, in Old Norse, as preserved in the Poetic Edda, the subjunctive serves optative functions in fixed poetic phrases for blessings or curses, such as vere ("may it be") in expressions of hope, comprising a notable portion of modal usages in mythological narratives. This merger facilitated simplification, with the subjunctive handling wishes via vowel alternations (e.g., a-subjunctive for present, u- for past), but the mood's distinctiveness began eroding due to phonological leveling and analogical pressures common to Germanic evolution. In modern , optative expressions have shifted to analytic constructions, periphrastic modals, or particles, reflecting further simplification and loss of synthetic moods across the family, often attributed to and internal restructuring. German retains vestiges in the Konjunktiv I (present subjunctive), used for formal wishes as in möge ("may it"), derived from mögen ("to be allowed/may") in phrases like "Möge Gott dich segnen" ("May God bless you"), an archaic but literary optative form emphasizing volition. English employs modal auxiliaries analytically for similar functions, such as "would that" in "Would that he were here" to express unattainable wishes, bypassing inflectional moods entirely. In Scandinavian languages, optative meanings appear via modal verbs like Swedish måtte (49.3% optative usage in historical corpora) or Danish wh-optatives like "Hvem der var rig!" ("Who there were rich!" – "If only I were rich!"), where particles such as der embed wishes in non-finite clauses; Norwegian and Danish also use particles like må or kunne in periphrastic wishes, marking a shared analytic trend. This widespread replacement underscores the Germanic family's tendency toward modal auxiliaries over inflections, influenced by contact with non-Indo-European substrates and prosodic shifts.

Albanian

The , as a branch of the Indo-European family, is notable for preserving a distinct optative mood among modern languages, a feature largely lost in most other contemporary Indo-European tongues but traceable to Proto-Indo-European reconstructions. This retention underscores Albanian's conservative morphology, potentially influenced by an ancient Illyrian substrate that may have reinforced the mood's survival in the . The optative mood in Albanian is formed synthetically by attaching specific suffixes to the verb stem, followed by personal endings that indicate person and number. For vowel-final stems, the suffix -fsh- is typically used (e.g., shkruaj "to write" becomes shkrofsh-); for most consonant-final stems, -sh- applies (e.g., hap "to open" becomes hapsh-); and for stems ending in nasal or sibilant consonants, -ç- is employed (e.g., punoj "to work" becomes punojç-). Personal endings then follow: -a for 1st singular, zero or -i for 2nd singular, -ë for 3rd singular, -im for 1st plural, -ni for 2nd plural, and -in for 3rd plural. Examples include qofsha "may I be" (from jam "to be") and rrofsh "may you live" (from rroj "to live"). The perfect optative combines the optative of kam "to have" with the past participle, as in paça shkruar "may I have written." In some conservative forms, endings like -aç or -ç appear, such as paç "may you have" in expressions of desire. Functionally, the Albanian optative expresses wishes, blessings, curses, and hypothetical conditionals, often standing alone or in independent clauses for emphasis. It conveys volition or , as in Qoftë i lumtur! "May he be happy!" or Rrofsh gjatë! "May you live long!" (a common ). In conditionals, it appears with particles like në for counterfactual wishes, e.g., Në qofsha i pasur "If only I were rich." This mood's versatility highlights its role in polite or emotive discourse, distinct from the subjunctive (të + verb), though overlaps occur in expressing desires. Dialectal variations distinguish the optative's usage between the northern Geg and southern Tosk dialects, with the standard Albanian (Tosk-based) showing reduced frequency compared to Geg. In Geg, the optative is more robust and archaic, featuring forms like dhashtë "may (s)he give" and appearing frequently in oral traditions; for instance, in Geg folk and ballads, optatives invoke blessings or laments, such as Mirëse erdhtë ", may you arrive well" in . Tosk dialects, while retaining the mood, often simplify it or blend it with subjunctive constructions like të jetë "" for wishes, reflecting smoother phonological shifts and less preservation of nasal sounds. This Geg-Tosk divide mirrors broader dialectal splits, with optatives more vivid in northern folk expressions like wedding or curses in heroic tales.

Romanian

In Romanian, the optative mood is not a distinct morphological category but manifests through a blend of subjunctive and conditional forms, often termed the "conditional-optative" in traditional grammars. This hybrid structure allows expression of wishes, desires, and hypothetical scenarios, primarily using the particle să followed by the subjunctive verb, as in să fie ("may it be"). Desiderative particles like fie (from Latin fīat, "let it be") further reinforce optative nuances, particularly in exclamatory or invocative contexts. This formation reflects Romanian's position in the , where subjunctive moods across languages, including parallels with Albanian, adapt to similar modal functions. Historically, the optative evolved within the Daco-Romanian branch of , emerging from substrates in the Dacian-Romanian continuum during the early medieval period. Slavic loans and syntactic influences from , introduced via cultural and religious contacts between the 6th and 10th centuries, reshaped the mood system by reinforcing subjunctive periphrases for modal expressions. In 16th- and 17th-century texts, such as personal letters, optative values appear embedded in subjunctive constructions to convey urgency or volition, marking a transitional phase where Latin optative residues merged with Balkan areal features. This evolution stabilized the subjunctive-optative blend as a core mechanism for non-indicative modalities. The optative primarily functions to articulate polite wishes, exhortations, and counterfactual desires, often with emotional or social illocutionary force. For instance, Să-ți fie de bine! ("May it be to your good!" or "Enjoy it!") serves as a courteous after meals, while Fie steaua norocoasă! ("May the lucky star be!" or "Good luck!") exhorts in motivational contexts. In and proverbs, these forms underscore or proverbial , as in Fie omul cât de bun, vinul îl face nebun ("Let a man be ever so good, wine makes him mad"), invoking hypothetical wishes to illustrate frailty. Such usages highlight the optative's in idiomatic, performative speech. In modern Romanian, optative elements persist in fixed expressions and colloquialisms, retaining vitality despite the dominance of indicative and subjunctive moods in everyday syntax. The standalone fie endures in phrases like Așa fie! ("So be it!"), echoing optative resignation or acceptance, while să fie appears in conditional wishes such as Să fie cu noroc! (" with luck!"). These survivals, often elliptical, preserve the mood's expressive legacy in , rituals, and informal , underscoring Romanian's adaptive modal system.

Optative in Non-Indo-European Languages

Basque

The optative mood in Basque, a unrelated to , expresses wishes, regrets, desires, and related notions such as permissions and hortatives. Historically, it was a feature of common Basque, attested across western, central, and eastern dialects from at least the , though it has largely declined in modern usage outside the easternmost . This mood fulfills key typological criteria for optatives: it is an inflectional category, occurs with all persons, and is primarily dedicated to wish-expression, distinguishing it from broader modal systems like the subjunctive or potential moods. Formation of the optative involves both synthetic and analytic constructions. Synthetic forms feature the prefix ait- (with allomorphs like eit- in western varieties) attached to the verb stem, often combined with auxiliaries for tense and agreement, as in ai-nintz etorr-i ("I wish I had come!") or ai-l-edi bizi betiko! ("May she live forever!"). Analytic variants pair a non-finite main verb with irrealis auxiliaries such as edin or ezan for counterfactual wishes, or realis izan/edun for potential realizations, yielding structures like [AUX – MAIN VERB] in subordinate contexts. These forms integrate with Basque's ergative agreement system, marking subject, object, and dative roles, though allocutive agreement—typically indexing the addressee's familiarity and gender in indicative and imperative moods—shows limited extension to optative contexts in preserved Souletin examples. Functionally, the optative conveys personal hopes or exhortations, often with an irrealis flavor implying lack of speaker control, as in hortative ainadilla bada bizi egin merezi ("Oh, that I might live worthily"). In subordinate clauses, non-finite optative elements appear in purpose or concessive constructions, such as aitnetza hek ungi guarda ("That I might obey"), enhancing modal nuance without full finiteness. As a pre-Indo-European relic, the optative likely predates Basque's contact with , surviving in oral traditions documented in early texts. Examples from 17th-century Labourdin and Souletin sources, like egundan ez-ailiz jaio gaxtagina ("Plût au ciel qu'il ne fût jamais né," from Oihenart), reflect its role in poetic and narrative , where it underscores emotional intensity in wishes or laments. By the 18th-19th centuries, it had receded in most dialects due to periphrastic shifts, but Souletin varieties preserved it into the , as noted in dialectological studies.

Uralic Languages

In , the is typically expressed through specialized verbal inflections or derivations that convey wishes, blessings, permissions, or counterfactual desires, often overlapping with jussive or conditional functions. Proto-Uralic is reconstructed with a conditional-optative mood marked by the *-ne, which survives in various forms across the family and distinguishes Uralic desiderative expressions from those in , where optatives more frequently encode potentiality or volition without such a unified reconstructible layer. This shared Uralic heritage reflects agglutinative morphology, where mood markers attach sequentially to stems to build nuanced expressions of intent. In Finnish, a Finnic , the optative (also termed jussive or second imperative) is an archaic form primarily used for third-person wishes or indirect commands, formed by adding the -koon to the stem in the . For example, tulkoon ('let him/her come') derives from the tulla ('to come') and expresses a or permissive wish, as in Hän tulkoon sisään ('Let him/her come inside'). This mood functions in s, such as religious or poetic invocations, and occasionally in counterfactuals to denote unattainable desires; it contrasts with the more common (-isi-) for hypothetical wishes. Desiderative notions may also arise through derivations with the -h-, as in syö-hän ('let one eat'), emphasizing a conative or wishful attempt, though these blend into broader irrealis categories. In Sami languages, such as Northern Sami, the optative merges with the imperative to form an imperative-optative mood, lacking a unique suffix but using connegative verb forms combined with personal pronouns or auxiliaries for third-person wishes. Historical analysis traces third-person optatives to passive present participles in possessive constructions, yielding expressions like mun leat ('let it be') for blessings or permissions. This mood handles counterfactuals in narrative contexts, such as unattained hopes. Samoyedic languages, the easternmost Uralic branch, express optative-like wishes through morphological imperatives or dedicated particles, often in dual or plural for communal blessings. In Nganasan, for example, sɨti baðǝ-tǝ-ndi buǝ-ŋǝǝ-ցǝj ('let them both speak') uses an imperative -ցǝj on the dual form, functioning for permissions or mild counterfactuals. Particles like mənə ('may it be') in related languages reinforce desiderative intent without full verbal . These elements highlight the family's agglutinative pattern, where optative marking adapts to discourse needs like blessings in ritual speech.

Turkic Languages

In , the optative mood expresses wishes, desires, hopes, or polite suggestions, often through agglutinative suffixes attached to the verb stem, reflecting volitional, deontic, or epistemic modalities. This mood unifies expressions of personal desire with conditional wishes, distinguishing it from imperatives by its irrealis nature and focus on potentiality rather than direct command. Across the , optative forms evolved from Proto-Turkic suffixes like -gA, which conveyed future-oriented wishes or necessities, and they frequently appear in ritualistic or expressive contexts. In Turkish, the optative (istek kipi) uses the suffix -(y)A for first-person forms to indicate desire or suggestion, as in gideyim ("let me go" or "I wish to go"), while the second-person singular employs -sIn, yielding forms like göresin ("may you see"). The mood integrates wish-conditionals via the -se suffix, which marks hypothetical scenarios and combines with for regrets, as in gelseydim ("if only I had come"), often paired with particles like keşke to emphasize longing. This unification allows optatives to bridge personal volition and counterfactual desires, enhancing expressiveness in narrative and poetic uses. Other exhibit parallel forms with adaptations. In Kazakh, the optative conveys wishes using suffixes like -ay or -ey after the stem, as in kelesey ("may you come"), typically for blessings or polite incitements, and it may compound with auxiliaries like kel- for tensed expressions of hope. Uyghur employs -Ay or -Ayli for voluntative-optative functions, expressing desire or necessity, such as in bolay ("may it be"), which appears in suppositional contexts with particles like du. These forms highlight the mood's role in proverbs and folk songs, where optatives invoke communal aspirations or ironic wishes, as seen in Turkish songs like those using utansın ("may they be ashamed") to critique social norms. Historically, runic inscriptions from the Orkhon and Yenisey regions demonstrate optative blessings through suffixes like -gAy or -zUn, often in dedicatory texts invoking divine favor. For instance, the inscription M III nr. 27 r 14 reads ögrün þün m(ä) ƾ in ärmäkä ƾ (i)zl[är] bolzun ("may a life in joy and materialize for you"), using the second-person optative to confer . Similar constructions in the Bilgä Kagan inscription (KT E10) employ -Ayïn for collective wishes like ölüräyin urugsïratayïn ("let us kill and exterminate"), blending resolve with hopeful . These early attestations underscore the optative's ties to evidential and , evolving from Proto-Turkic irrealis markers. Under Altaic hypotheses, Turkic optatives show parallels with Mongolic forms, such as shared volitional suffixes suggesting areal diffusion or common ancestry, though debates persist on genetic relatedness versus contact influence. This connection is evident in comparable structures across the proposed family, reinforcing the mood's role in expressing fate-bound desires.

Japanese

In Japanese, an agglutinative language, there is no dedicated inflectional optative mood comparable to those in ; instead, optative notions such as wishes, desires, and hortatives are expressed analytically through verbal affixes, auxiliary constructions, and particles. This approach aligns with broader typological trends in analytic languages, where modality relies on periphrastic elements rather than fused verb forms. In (roughly 7th–8th centuries), optative expressions were formed using particles like nu ka(mo), combining the adnominal form of the negative auxiliary zu with the dubitative particle ka and exclamative mo, primarily for third-person wishes or negative exclamations. For example, akanu kamo in the Man’yōshū anthology conveys a desire never to tire of viewing something beautiful. Another construction involved the particle namu (or variant namo), attached to verb forms to express wishes for actions by non-speakers, as in third-person optatives limited to agents other than the speaker. These forms appeared in inflectional contexts without marking on subjects, distinguishing optatives from imperatives. By the (9th–12th centuries), such synthetic optatives declined in literature like the , partly due to phonological shifts and the rising influence of , which introduced new modal auxiliaries but did not revive dedicated optative inflections. In modern Japanese, optative functions are conveyed through the volitional -u (or -ō for ichidan ), forming suggestions like tabeyō ("let's eat"), and the desiderative -tai, as in tabetai ("I want to eat" or "would like to eat"). For wishes involving others, analytic constructions such as -te hoshii ("I want you to [verb]") or -te kure express desires, while counterfactual wishes use conditional particles like kana in yokattara ("if only it had been good"). These serve purposes (e.g., group invitations) and counterfactual regrets, often softened by markers like desu. Historically, the shift from Old Japanese's particle-based optatives to modern analytic forms reflects a broader process, where inflectional moods eroded by (9th–12th centuries) and were replaced by periphrastic expressions influenced by contact with Chinese modal terms during the Heian era. Typologically, Japanese optatives exemplify agglutinative analyticity, relying on postverbal elements and auxiliaries rather than verb-root inflections, which allows flexible encoding of speaker attitudes without altering core verb paradigms.

Semitic Languages

In , the optative mood is primarily expressed through the jussive form of the verb, particularly in the second and third persons, to convey wishes, blessings, or mild commands. For example, the jussive yəhî ʾôr in Genesis 1:3 translates as "," functioning as an optative expression of divine will. The cohortative form of the serves a similar optative role in the first person singular or plural, emphasizing personal resolve or group wishes, as in niškanāh "let us dwell" from Exodus 24:16, where it expresses a desire. These volitive forms often appear in blessings and prayers throughout the , such as yissaʾ yhwh pānāyw ʾēleykā in Numbers 6:26, meaning "may the Lord lift up his countenance upon you." In , optative functions have largely shifted to subjunctive constructions with the particle še-, as in še-yēšēb bəšālōm "may he sit in peace," reviving Biblical nuances through analytic means rather than dedicated morphology. Among other , employs the energetic mood, marked by the suffix -nna on the imperfect verb, to intensify optative expressions of strong volition or oaths, such as yaqtulanna "may he surely kill" in emphatic wishes or asseverations. This form overlaps with optative uses in contexts like prayers, where the perfect tense also conveys completed wishes, for instance, jazā llāhu khayran "may reward with good." In Akkadian, the precative construction, formed with the particle lū prefixed to the completive or , explicitly expresses optative wishes, as in lū iprus "may he decide" or lū baliṭ "may he live," limited to non-imperfective aspects in early stages. similarly utilizes jussive forms for optative purposes, particularly in , where lēhēwē in Daniel 2:20 functions as "may it be," rendering a like "may his name be blessed" in hymnic or liturgical contexts. Across these languages, optative expressions often derive from a shared Semitic morphological link between forms and modal wishes, highlighting a typological pattern of volitive integration into the verbal system.

Other Languages

In Mongolian, the optative mood, often termed the "wishing form," expresses desires or hopes not directly involving the speaker, typically using suffixes such as -sugai/-sügei attached to the verb stem, as in bolsougai meaning "may it be(come)!" This form derives from historical Written Mongol and appears in literary contexts, including where it conveys wishes for heroic outcomes or communal aspirations. Desiderative constructions, marking personal wants, employ suffixes like -ma/-me or -m-aar, exemplified by yavamaar ("I want to go"), which can function independently or adnominally to indicate or suitability. Recent post-2000 linguistic analyses, such as those examining verbal categories in , highlight the optative's role in irrealis expressions and its evolution from imperative forms, though documentation remains limited outside poetic traditions. Sumerian features a precative-dubitative mood for expressing wishes, blessings, or doubts, formed with the modal prefix /he-/ and often the marû (imperfective) stem, sometimes combined with plural markers like -eš in third-person contexts. In royal inscriptions, this mood appears in formulaic blessings, such as nam he₂-ma-kud-e ("may she him") from Statue C, or hu-mu-hul₂-le-en ("may you rejoice"), underscoring deontic modalities in dedicatory texts. Digital corpora like the Electronic Text Corpus of (ETCSL) and the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Royal Inscriptions (ETCSRI) have enhanced analysis of these forms since the early 2000s, enabling searchable access to over 400 compositions and annotated inscriptions for precise morphological study. Burushaski, a spoken in , has an optative mood to convey hopes, wishes, or curses, formed by adding suffixes like -iš to perfective stems for wishes and -um for curses. These finite optative forms express expectations in both main and subordinate clauses, as detailed in grammatical sketches of Hunza and Eastern dialects. In Ket, a of , optative-like functions are realized through particles rather than dedicated verbal inflections, including qān for non-imperative wishes and another particle for subjunctive-optative nuances in purposive or desiderative contexts. This analytic strategy contrasts with synthetic moods in related extinct Yeniseian languages, where reconstructions suggest proto-forms for irrealis wishes based on preserved verbal paradigms. Documentation gaps persist for both Burushaski and Ket, with optative elements underrepresented in broader typological studies compared to more systematic moods in neighboring families.

References

  1. https://wals.info/chapter/73
  2. https://shs.cairn.info/article/SS_022_0015/pdf?lang=en
  3. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/age/optative-mood
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396781424_The_Optative_Mood_as_a_Distinctive_Feature_of_the_Albanian_Language_A_Morphological_and_Typological_Analysis
  5. https://brill.com/view/journals/jgl/23/1/article-p36_3.xml?language=en
  6. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5093/
  7. https://denverjournal.denverseminary.edu/the-denver-journal-article/voice-and-mood-a-linguistic-approach/
  8. https://brill.com/view/journals/jgl/23/1/article-p36_3.xml
  9. https://pressbooks.pub/ancientgreek/chapter/47/
  10. https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/funk-grammar/pre-alpha/lesson-56.html
  11. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/68913
  12. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-549
  13. https://thesis.dial.uclouvain.be/server/api/core/bitstreams/9344c937-0255-470e-856c-b170a819c050/content
  14. https://www.academia.edu/33294265/The_Morphology_of_Proto_Indo_European
  15. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/melchertmarburg2015.pdf
  16. https://www.kloekhorst.nl/KloekhorstOriginOfHiConjugationMS.pdf
  17. https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/4/1/article-p98_4.xml
  18. https://www.exhibit.xavier.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=hab
  19. https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/books/reader/13-k-brugmann
  20. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/inmemoriamcalvertwatkins.pdf
  21. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/monro/optative
  22. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/goodell/optative-sentences
  23. https://pressbooks.pub/ancientgreek/chapter/48/
  24. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/monro/optative-simple-sentences
  25. https://ia801306.us.archive.org/4/items/sanskritgrammari00whit/sanskritgrammari00whit.pdf
  26. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/optative-subjunctive
  27. https://grammars.alpheios.net/allen-greenough/moods-tenses.htm
  28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/705780
  29. https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/commentaries/letters/ciceroadfam12.3.html
  30. https://exlibris1.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/the-demise-of-the-optative-in-latin-and-greek/
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389709848_Towards_a_unitary_and_differentiated_analytical_approach_to_the_evolution_of_mood_from_Latin_to_Romance
  32. https://www.carocci.it/files/riviste/digitali/08_melazzo.pdf
  33. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls/vol10/iss1/11
  34. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/222791297.pdf
  35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/288772
  36. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nordic-journal-of-linguistics/article/semantic-change-and-grammaticalization-the-development-of-modal-and-postmodal-meanings-in-mainland-scandinavian-ma-matte-and-maste/5360D59FD9EFFFF5AD72146F5AE35806
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259433390_Wh-Optatives_in_Danish_Compositional_and_Noncompositional_Aspects
  38. https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/albol
  39. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-421
  40. https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/albol/50
  41. https://www.seelrc.org:8080/grammar/pdf/albanian_bookmarked.pdf
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378199393_THE_OPTATIVE_IN_THE_ALBANIAN_LANGUAGE
  43. https://home.uchicago.edu/vfriedm/Articles/191Friedman05.pdf
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317200743_Introduction_Optative_and_sentence_types_Rewriting_a_chapter_of_Romance_grammar
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317199674_The_optative_in_subjunctive_mood_in_Romanian_letters_from_the_16th_and_17th_centuries
  46. https://brill.com/view/journals/jlc/14/1/article-p24_24.xml?language=en
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Petronela-Savin/publication/331399068_Romanian_Phraseological_Dictionary_The_Onomasiological_Field_of_Human_Nourishment/links/5c77a747a6fdcc4715a1c01c/Romanian-Phraseological-Dictionary-The-Onomasiological-Field-of-Human-Nourishment.pdf
  48. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-487
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385284340_Searching_for_a_rara_avis_the_history_of_Basque_optative
  50. https://uralic.clld.org/parameters/UT031
  51. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.120.30deg
  52. https://www.academia.edu/42910632/Analysis_of_Saami_3rd_person_optative_forms_as_historical_passive_present_participle_possessive_constructions
  53. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/turkic/optatives/A85BA2CA7CF93082E58976046F2636EA
  54. https://universaldependencies.org/qtd/feat/Mood.html
  55. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Proto-Turkic/Optatives%2C_necessitatives_and_questions
  56. https://talkpal.ai/mastering-turkish-verbs-a-complete-guide-to-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2581%25D8%25B9%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D9%2584%25D8%25BA%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25AA%25D8%25B1%25D9%2583%25D9%258A%25D8%25A9/
  57. https://www.lengo.io/lessons/turkish-combined-tenses-and-m
  58. https://slaviccenters.duke.edu/sites/slaviccenters.duke.edu/files/file-attachments/kazakh-grammar.pdf
  59. https://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/mon/2010/ppn%2520618306412.pdf
  60. http://www.tuned-in-turkish.com/2014/10/optative-sin-ip-ending.html
  61. https://theswissbay.ch/pdf/Books/Linguistics/Mega%20linguistics%20pack/Turkic/Old%20Turkic%2C%20A%20Grammar%20of%20%28Erdal%29.pdf
  62. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1475119.pdf
  63. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-278
  64. https://magdalena-kaufmann.uconn.edu/papers/japaneseHB-prefinal.pdf
  65. https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/record/2013354/files/lis2304.pdf
  66. https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/en/edizioni4/riviste/annali-di-ca-foscari-serie-orientale/2025/1/optative-namu-and-its-variant-namo-in-old-japanese/
  67. https://vsarpj.orinst.ox.ac.uk/files/RussellSells.ICHL2013.pdf
  68. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-70424-0_5
  69. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/109._Use_of_the_Jussive
  70. https://www.academia.edu/4736443/Optative_Expressions_in_Hebrew
  71. https://archive.org/download/grammarofarabic02casp/grammarofarabic02casp_bw.pdf
  72. https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/linpo/article/view/v10122-011-0009-2
  73. https://biblicalhebrew.org/aramaic/the-jussive-force-of-leheve-in-daniel2-20
  74. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43380199
  75. https://theswissbay.ch/pdf/Books/Linguistics/Mega%20linguistics%20pack/Mongolic/Mongolian%20%28Janhunen%29.pdf
  76. https://academic.oup.com/book/41762/chapter/354241536
  77. https://ia600204.us.archive.org/12/items/SumerianMorphology/RubioG.2007.SumerianMorphology.pdf
  78. https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/
  79. https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/etcsri/
  80. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004387898/BP000015.xml
  81. http://www.tufs.ac.jp/common/is/kyoumu/pg/pdf/yoshioka-youshi-e.pdf
  82. https://siblang.tspu.ru/grant/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Nefedov-Prohibitive-constructions-in-Ket_final.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.