Origin of VougeraĚâs imperative
The imperative in VougeraĚ is quite different from that of the other Tuuric languages. While TjaĚr has -ji, -ci, -iĚ, -cĚi and MioĚrra has -ggje, -zĚe, -je, -jaiĚ both from Old Tuura -je and in turn Proto-Sumric -ję (compare Old SumrĂŤ -je). VougeraĚ has the imperative prefix smou- which attaches to the supine form of the verb unlike any of itâs relatives. The reason is due to grammaticalisation in Soyra (the mother of VougeraĚ and daughter of Old Tuura).Â
Soyra in general was pretty innovative, shedding many of itâs Old Tuura feathers and gaining new ones, such as a total pronoun reform and a wave of grammaticalisation bringing many new derivational morphemes into the language. The Old Tuura imperative -je was dropped and was replaced by a construction meaning âyou allow there to be X-ingâ where the supine form of the verb was used alongside an existential construction. For example âsoothe!â was dar rotys maĚ emti kvjes (you allow-2S it.INAN be-INF SUP-soothe) âyou allow there to be soothingâ. The verb âto beâ was optionally dropped giving the more common construction dar rotys maĚ kvjes. If the imperative had a subject and another verb such as âlet the frog hopâ then the construction would be âyou allow there to be hopping from the frogâ where the object would have the postposition jaĚn âfromâ e.g dar rotys maĚ kmaraĚgg lamg jaĚn âlet the frog hopâ (you allow-2S it.INAN SUP-hop DEF/frog from). Eventually the verb rotys âyou allowâ (second person present of the verb rosi âto allowâ) became cliticised as s- onto maĚ (third person singular inanimate pronoun) which was itself cliticised onto the supine verb giving smaĚkvjes âsoothe!â (compare with the infinitve vjessi âto sootheâ)
However since these clitics were still identifyable as contractions of rotys âyou allowâ and maĚ (3S inanimate pronoun) because the uncontracted forms were still attested. It wasnât until Late Soyra that smaĚ- could be anaysed as a new imperative prefix. This is because of a major pronoun reform where older pronouns were dropped and new pronouns were derived from verbs meaning âto be selfâ, for example the pronouns dar and maĚ fell out of speech as the second person singular and third person singular inanimate pronouns and were replaced by jecĚjyhsaĚ (literally meaning âyou who are yourself) and jemaĚraĚsaĚdaĚ (literally meaning âIâve never heard of a functioning pronounââŚjust kidding it means âthat which is itselfâ). Then verb inflections were eroded by sound changes which left the s- from rotys (-ys being the second person singular present suffix) also as being unanalysable. With these reanalysations the construction was no longer identifyable as âyou allow there to be X-ingâ and so the construction âyou allow there to beX-ing from Yâ when the imperative verb had an object no longer made any sense. So a sentence like âlet the frog hopâ was then structured as smaĚkrot kmaraĚgg lamg jaĚn (IMP-allow SUP-hop DEF/frog from) or âallow hopping from the frogâ. Notice that in this case the imperative suffix attaches to the very same verb from which it was (partially) derived from!
This rendered the clitic cluster smaĚ- unanalysable as as contracted pronouns for those pronouns no longer existed, and so it is then reasonable to analyse it instead as an imperative prefix which attaches to supine verbs. Then sound changes from VougeraĚ caused the prefix to become smou- ([É] had been raised by Ungeish Raising, the presence of [u] being due to the sound change where [o] broke into [oĚŻu] before velars which was triggered by the supine prefix k- which always occures after the imperative suffix). If I derive further daughters from VouregaĚ then I may analyse the g- (a consonant shift caused [k] to become [g])as part of the prefix resulting in smoug- if I switch the supine verb with an infinite one which would leave the g- to attach to the prefix before it.Â
VougeraĚ had some more fun with grammaticalisation in imperatives when it derived new imperative prefixes which mean âto allowâ and âto make, to causeâ such as âlet the frog hopâ or âmake the frog hopâ. These derive from the Soyra imperatives smaĚkrot âallow!â and smaĚkiss âcause!,  make!â. In VougeraĚ these became smougrut and smougess. These two words then became the prefixes grut-  and gess- which attached to verbs. Since a later sound change in VougeraĚ deleted word final consonants the supine verbs from which the prefixes derive from became gru and ge (as supine forms of rusi and esi). As the final consonants in the prefixes were preserved itâs reasonable to analyse them as prefixes. More grammaticalisation occured when the postposition jaĚn âfromâ (now jo) attached itself to the object of the imperative verb, causing it to become a suffix for objects of imperative clauses. As such I name it the imperative accusative.  The prefixes attach to infintive verbs instead of the supine. So âlet the frop hopâ is now gessmarrogse lajo (CAUS.IMP-hop-INF frog-ACC)
An example of the imperative in Proto-Sumric, the Tuuric languages, Hajec and Old SumrĂŤ
âMake the frog eat the mushroomâ
Proto-Sumric: Tar istję bÉlmkÉĚ njak atyoĚkÉw  ( you cause-IMP DEF/frog-ACC.ANIM eat DEF/mushroom-ACC.INAN
Hajec: Tar ist bilmkeĚ njak atiokoĚÂ (you cause DEF/frog eat DEF/mushroom)
Old SumrĂŤ: Tar ĂąacisÄe baĚlmcuĚ aduoĚcĂť (you eat-CAUS-IMP DEF/frog-ACC.DEER DEF/mushroom)
Old Tuura: Dar ihhtje baĚlmkaĚ njakti adyoguĚuĚ (you cause-IMP frog-ACC.ANIM eat-INF DEF/mushroom-ACC.INAN)
TjaĚr: Dra ucĚi boĚlmkoĚ jnaktu aduoĚg (you cause-IMP frog-ACC eat-INF mushroom-ACC)
MioĚrra: Tar isĚcĚe pezĚkmaiĚ oĂąakcĚi acĚoaaiĚkuaĚ (you cause-IMP DEF/frog-AC.ANIM eat-INF DEF/mushroon-ACC-INAN)
VougeraĚ: GessjaĚgse lajo aĚdiougoĚuĚ Â Â (CAUS.IMP-eat frog-ACC mushroo-ACC.INAN)