Message-Id: <m0t3Clz-0000ZWC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 11 Oct 1995 19:45:21 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: On and around "let"
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3716
Lines: 97

la kris cusku di'e
> I guess we've discussed this before, but 3rd person commands are something I
> just can't wrap my English mind around.  When I say such things I think of
> it as a second person command of some sort; I'm ordering the listener to
> allow the third person, or force them, or convince them to do something; or
> if there's no clear 2nd person then I'm speaking to God or the Fates or
> somesuch, saying "Weave-the-strands-of-time-and-space such that the third
> person does this."; or maybe just "I hope the third person does this".

I don't think there is much more than that to wrap the mind around. Even
if it's not used much, English does have or had some sort of third person
imperative. The tense of the verb in "long live the queen" is the same as
the one in "live long and prosper". Whether we call it imperative or something
else doesn't really matter. In a sense it's true that the command is always
directed to the second person, if you include the Fate Weaver as a possible
audience, but there is no need that the second person be an argument of the
bridi.

> I guess there's a single concept lurking in all those idioms, but English
> speakers don't *think* of it that way.  For me the distinctions are
> important, and I'm glad Lojban doesn't have a catchall third-person version
> of "ko".

I don't know how that could work anyway, since Lojban doesn't even have one
catchall third-person version of {do}. There would have to be one for each
of ko'a, ko'e, ri, ra, by, cy, etc.

What's more inconsistent is that mi, mi'o, mi'a, ma'a and do'o don't
have an imperative version. But they are not needed, just as {ko} is
not really needed. In my opinion, the "imperativity" does not really
belong in a sumti.

Consider these:

        au do lo plise mi dunda
        <wish> You give me an apple.

        a'o do lo plise mi dunda
        <hope> You give me an apple.

        e'o do lo plise mi dunda
        <request> You give me an apple.

        e'u do lo plise mi dunda
        <suggestion> You give me an apple.

        e'a do lo plise mi dunda
        <permission> You give me an apple.

        ei do lo plise mi dunda
        <obligation> You give me an apple.

They have different forms in normal English: "I wish you would give
me an apple", "I hope you give me an apple", "Please, give me an apple",
"How about giving me an apple?", "You may give me an apple", "You must
give me an apple".

Why should "<command> You give me an apple" be special? Just because
there is a special tense in English and other languages for that?
Of course, {ko} may be useful because it's nice and short, but there
wouldn't really be any loss in expressive power without it.


la paulos cusku di'e

> Hmm, how about this (the first sentence is found in Lesson 4):
>
>     la kim. cu cisma ko
>     "Be such that Kim smiles at you".
>
>     e'o la kim. cu cisma do
>     "Be it so, that Kim smiles at you".
>
> If this translation is correct, there is no *direct* order as in the
> first sentence.

The gismu {cisma} now doesn't have an x2 place. Some of the examples in
the lessons use gismu from before the time when the place structures
settled down. The lujvo {cismyfra} for "x1 smiles at x2 (under
conditions x3)" is a possible replacement.

To indicate who the request is aimed at, the attitudinal can be
placed after the sumti:

        la kim cu cismyfra do e'o
        That Kim smile at you, I ask you.

That is still something strange to say, since the agent here is Kim,
so it is strange to ask you that she smile. It's like saying "be smiled
at by Kim".

Something like the following would make more sense to me:

        e'o do cismygau la kim
        Please make Kim smile.

Jorge