Chapter 115Hortative, Optative, and Cohortative

115.1 The hortative system

A set of sentence-final particles — ro, rok, and no, distributed by dialect — attaches to a finite clause and converts it into an invitation to joint action. Nakagawa places these under the sentence-final particles (終助詞) in the category of 勧誘, 'inducement or invitation', seeking the addressee's agreement Nakagawa (2024: 333–335). In their most frequent use the particles follow a clause whose subject is the inclusive fourth person, giving the cohortative 'let us …'; with a first-person subject they shift into a volitional or deliberative register. The related particle so marks self-directed deliberation addressed to no one in particular. Together these uses span the domain that descriptive grammars variously call hortative, cohortative, and optative.

The system sits at the boundary of two adjacent areas. On one side is the directive mood — imperative and prohibitive — treated in Chapter 114 (Imperative and Prohibitive (Directive Mood)); on the other is the desiderative and epistemic-modal field of Chapter 119 (Epistemic Modality, Dubitative, Intentive, and Irrealis). The hortative differs from the imperative in keeping person affixes intact on the finite verb and in proposing participation rather than directing it; it differs from the desiderative rusuy ‘want to’ in that rusuy predicates an internal desire as an assertion while ro addresses an invitation. The broader TAM and directive architecture is mapped in Chapter 108 (Tense, Aspect, Mood, and Modality: Overview).

115.2 Dialect distribution of the hortative particles

The three phonological variants share the same function and occur in complementary geographic zones across Hokkaido, with partial overlap in Ishikari Nakagawa (2024: 334–335).

This chapter cites ro as the reference form. Attested examples from other dialect regions carry their appropriate dialect tag; the grammatical description applies across all three variants.

115.3 The cohortative: inclusive fourth-person subject

The canonical hortative clause is a finite predicate carrying the fourth-person subject marker — the intransitive suffix =an or the transitive agent prefix a= — followed by the hortative particle. The fourth person in this environment receives an inclusive reading: it denotes the speaker and addressee(s) acting together. This is the primary discourse context in which the fourth-person subject functions as an explicit inclusive 'we'; the full paradigm and the broader referential range are set out in Chapter 67 (The Indefinite/Fourth Person: Forms, Reference, and Agent-Defocusing) ‹consensus›.

Number-sensitive suppletive verb pairs select the plural stem when the cohortative implies a plural group. The motion verb arpa (singular 'go') supplies its plural counterpart paye in a cohortative directed at a group of participants Nakagawa (2024: 142–145).

The particle attaches to clause chains in which each predicate retains its own person marking and the sequential conjunctive wa links the component clauses:

Both verbs in the chain carry =an, the same pattern found in existential-aspect pair verbs such as kor an and wa an (see Chapter 108 (Tense, Aspect, Mood, and Modality: Overview)): each predicate is independently person-marked, and the final particle closes the chain from outside. The inclusive 'we' reading that distinguishes the cohortative from a generic or indefinite fourth-person clause is supplied by context and the hortative particle together; the morphology of the fourth person itself is identical across these uses.

115.4 Volitional and deliberative uses

Tamura observed that ro is not restricted to the fourth-person inclusive base. With a first-person subject it expresses the speaker's own volition as a proposal or offer rather than an invitation to joint participation, occupying what the typological literature calls the volitional or optative range Nakagawa (2024: 335).

The Chitose dialect supplies a parallel transitive construction in which the speaker proposes to act for the addressee's benefit. The second-person object prefix is overt; the first-person agent is contextually supplied.

The related particle so marks deliberation directed at no one: the speaker reasons through a choice aloud, translated roughly as '〜しようかな' ('I wonder whether I should …'). Whereas ro — even in its 1SG volitional use — addresses a proposal to the interlocutor, so keeps the reasoning internal to the speaker Nakagawa (2024: 335).

Ijäs's pedagogical guide carries a hortative clause in its own title: a=eyaypakasnu ro 'let us study [Ainu]', in which the fourth-person transitive agent prefix a= heads an inclusive proposition and ro expresses the invitation Ijäs (2023) ‹corpus-confirmed›. The construction matches Nakagawa's description of the standard fourth-person cohortative.

115.5 Relationship to the imperative, prohibitive, and desiderative

The formal contrast with the imperative is clear. The singular imperative is a bare verb carrying no second-person subject prefix: arpa 'go!' The plural or polite imperative adds the final particle yan to the plural stem, again without a subject person prefix: hosippa yan 'go back (all of you)!' The hortative, by contrast, preserves the full person-marking of the finite clause — paye=an ro retains =an on the verb — and the particle attaches outside that marked predicate Nakagawa (2024: 421–423, 334) ‹consensus›. The illocutionary distinction follows from the morphological one: the imperative directs the addressee, while the hortative proposes joint participation or the speaker's own contribution.

The prohibitive adverb iteki (Saru/Chitose form; dialect variants treated in Chapter 114 (Imperative and Prohibitive (Directive Mood))) scopes over the bare imperative stem and does not combine with the person-marked hortative clause Nakagawa (2024: 424–425). When a speaker wishes to counsel against a joint course of action, a conditional or modal construction serves that function rather than iteki fronted before a hortative clause.

The desiderative auxiliary rusuy ‘want to’ occupies the pre-particle auxiliary slot and predicates the speaker's internal desire as an assertion Nakagawa (2024: 312–313). A sentence ending in rusuy is a declaration of wanting, not an invitation; ro cannot substitute for it in that position, and rusuy cannot occupy the final-particle slot where ro sits. The desiderative together with the prospective kusu ne and other irrealis and epistemic auxiliaries are treated in Chapter 119 (Epistemic Modality, Dubitative, Intentive, and Irrealis).