Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rlxAo-00007ZC; Tue, 7 Mar 95 13:11 EET
Message-Id: <m0rlxAo-00007ZC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 9657; Tue, 07 Mar 95 12:41:13 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9652; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 12:41:13 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7137; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 11:37:16 +0100
Date:         Tue, 7 Mar 1995 05:38:27 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: indirect commands?
X-To:         topic@math.hr
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 594
Lines: 16

>From: Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>
>Subject:      Re: indirect commands?
>
>Huh? What has Russian got to do with this? .gy.

The question came up when I was studying the use of the particle "pust'"
which used in a sentence makes it a "3rd person imperative".  e.g.
pust' deti igrayut
Let the children play.

I had previously interpreted "pust'" as "Allow the children to play".
But there were a couple examples in the book I was studying where it was
clear that the intent was for the listener to relay the command, or
otherwise take more active measures than English "allow" suggests.

lojbab