Message-Id: <199510120250.WAA12140@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:59:12 -0600
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject:      Re: On and around "let"
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

[I did it again!  Jorge will be seeing this message twice :-( ]

>That's a literal interpretation of "let", but the English idiom is not
>always an order to _allow_ them to do anything. In fact, there is no need
>for there to be a second person at all. It means something like "be it so,
>that they do their job themselves". I don't think {curmi} should be used
>for this idiomatic use of {let}, unless it really is being used to say
>"allow them to do their job".

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
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".
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
                      \/   cbogart@quetzal.com