Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id OAA06566 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 14:29:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199510101829.OAA06566@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 06D512C9 ; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:59:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:55:31 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: On and around "let" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Tue Oct 10 14:29:33 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU > I wonder how the following expressions are translated into Lojban: Here are some possibilities: > 1. Let's eat. e'u mi'o citka > 2. Let me in! e'o do curmi le nu mi nerkla [e'o ko curmi le nu mi nerkla] e'o mi nerkla > 3. I'll have my hair cut. ai da torgau le mi kerfa > 4. I'll let her cut my hair. e'a ko'a torgau le mi kerfa > 5. She cut my hair! (where "cut" is an imperative, not a typo) ei ko'a torgau le mi kerfa e'o ko'a torgau le mi kerfa e'u ko'a torgau le mi kerfa > 6. Let [may] they do their job themselves! ei ko'a gasnu le ri jibri > The question here is: how do you express third person variations of > imperative/volitive? I think the answer is to use attitudinals, particularly those of the e-series: .e'a attitudinal: permission - prohibition .e'e attitudinal: competence - incompetence/inability .e'i attitudinal: constraint - independence - challenge .e'o attitudinal: request - negative request .e'u attitudinal: suggestion - abandon suggest - warning .ei attitudinal: obligation - freedom By "competence" I understand "encouragement", "you-can-do-it", which of course can also be self-directed or directed towards a third party. {e'i} I still don't fully understand, but I suppose {e'inai} could be understood as a dare to do something: "I dare you to do it". To me it would make more sense if {e'i} was that, rather than {e'inai}, but anyway. > They may even be uncommon (not sure about that) > in English, but in other languages they are quite often. Yes, I think that the reason why Lojban only has {ko} for the imperative is that in English only the second person imperative is clearly marked. I don't think it is a big problem because of the attitudinals. {ko} is even redundant. Jorge