We are examining the imperative according to the typological system set up by Van der Auwera & Lejeune (2005). However, the authors only dealt with the imperative of the 2nd person singular, while several Uralic languages have a full paradigm (e.g. Northern Samoyedic languages, Hungarian). The research on Uralic languages shows that the Neg element of the imperative can also be used in other moods (e.g. Enets: debitive)
| Type I | Type II | Type III | Type IV |
|---|---|---|---|
| normal imperative – normal negative | normal imperative – special negative | special imperative – normal negative | special imperative – special negative |
| Nganasan (according to WALS: Type IV) | Khanty, Mansi, Enets, Nenets, Selkup, Kamassian (Ugric and Samoyedic languages except Nganasan); Mordvin, Finnish, Estonian, Mari | Mari |
Typ I: The prohibitive uses the verbal construction of the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy found in (indicative) declaratives
Typ II: The prohibitive uses the verbal construction of the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy not found in (indicative) declaratives
Typ III: The prohibitive uses a verbal construction other than the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy found in (indicative) declaratives
Typ IV: The prohibitive uses a verbal construction other than the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy not found in (indicative) declarative