From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 14 22:13:44 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3402 ; Wed, 14 Jun 95 22:13:40 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Tue, 13 Jun 95 20:05:02 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa05494; 13 Jun 95 21:04 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1426; Tue, 13 Jun 95 16:02:16 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0171; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 14:33:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 15:58:29 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: imperative mood X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506132104.aa05494@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R Lojbab: >> I've often wondered if there is some subtlety to third person imperatives >> that is distinct from a normal 2nd person "let", so that we can see if the >> subtlety can be expressed in Lojban. Xorxes: >Do you really feel a second person imperative when you say "let him do it"? >You can even say it to no one. I don't think that the fact that it is >a second person imperative in _form_ takes anything out or adds anything >to the meaning. The same thing happens with "let's go". It is not really >a second person imperative, even though in form it is. I'm glad we don't have an explicit 3rd p. imperative in Lojban, because I don't think I like them. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it seems to me that these are all 3rd person imperatives (.e'u ko'a gasnu) : let him do it make him do it tell him to do it have him do it may he do it! To me these all have a range of distinct meanings. In the second person imperative it's clear that you want the listener to do a certain thing. But it seems to me that a 3rd p. imperative really is a disguised 2nd person imperative. You're not *really* ordering 3 to do something, you're ordering 2 to do something to or for 3; or maybe you're just wishing aloud to 2 about 3. The existence of a 3rd imperative seems to me to be a source of bad ambiguity in some natlangs. Does ".e'u ko'a cu gugde cliva" mean "allow them to emigrate" or "exile them"? It's an important distinction, especially if ko'a cu so'imei gi'e djica so'i frica. In Japanese there's a verb affix "sase" that has exactly this ambiguity; is that true of other languages with 3rd imperatives? (BTW I think "let's" is a special case. It's only historically a contraction of "let us"; I can't think of any situation where you could contract "let us" or decontract "let's" without either considerably changing the meaning or sounding archaic. (A flea and a fly in a flue, were trapped, so what could they do? "Let us flee", said the fly; "Let us fly", said the flea; so they flew through a flaw in the flue.))