Example (14) clearly indicates that imperative marking in Kihnu interrogative sentences shows even greater combinatorial freedom than the imperative mood in its typical use as a marker of illocutionary force.
As already noted, the use of third person imperative forms is not attested in interrogative sentences in the other Estonian dialects.
The jussive is rather common in Estonian dialects, although not in interrogative sentences.
Wiedemann notes obsolete uses of imperative in interrogative sentences (like examples 20, 21 and 22) in his grammar of Estonian (Wiedemann 1875 : 468); on the other hand, the Corpus of Old Written Estonian does not reveal any examples of imperatives in questions (Kulli Habicht, personal communication).
Much like in Kihnu, this periphrastic construction occurs in interrogative sentences.
Subdivision of interrogative sentences and the suspension of downdrift
Interrogative sentences are very often substructured to reflect thematization.
In interrogative sentences, thematization, and hence intonational substructuring, are optional most of the time, as shown in the examples in (47), just as they are in statements (compare  and [37a]):
Our illustrations have included a comparison of declarative and interrogative sentences (particularly in section 4), and sentences with and without focus (section 2).