The modal variation and morpho-syntactic mismatches of imperatives have challenged model-theoretic linguists, making it hard to unify them as a notional category. Depending on specific theories, imperatives inherently contain an illocutionary operator with directive force (e.g., Han 1998, 1999a/b/c, 2001), a performative necessity modal similar to MUST/SHOULD (e.g., Schwager 2005a, 2005b, 2006; as Kaufmann 2012), or may denote an addressee-restricted property that constitutes a full commitment (e.g., Portner 2005, 2003a/b; 2007; Ninan 2005; Condoravdi & Lauer 2010, 2011, 2012; among others). Despite the fact that imperatives cannot be simply identified with a single label of modality (i.e., necessity, possibility, deontic, bouletic, teleological etcetera), I propose that there is indeed an underlying property shared by all imperatives unifying and distinguishing them from declaratives: they contribute a nonveridical modal space. In this paper, I study imperatives in terms of nonveridicality and polar partition and argue that their semantic contribution is the presupposition of epistemic uncertainty as to the actualization of a proposition p and the creation of nonveridical modal spaces. Imperatives introduce a preference ordering between p and non-p worlds, and are analyzed as nonveridical operators conveying partial certainty and no inherent directive force. Under this perspective, it is not unexpected that imperative manifests not only as a verbal morphology, but also in the form of particles, i.e., the subjunctive imperatives with na particle in Greek, or that imperatives function modally since nonveridicality characterizes all modalities. Therefore, the dilemma whether imperatives are modals or not becomes redundant; it only matters that imperatives induce nonveridical modal spaces.