Message-Id: <199510111845.OAA23179@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:12:00 LCL
Reply-To: BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Paulo Barreto <BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM>
Subject:      Re: On and around "let"
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> > 6. Let the[m] do their job themselves!
> [...]
> 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".

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind.

> 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.

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.

Now a sentence from dn. (Don Wiggins):

> > 1. Let's eat.
> .i ko po'u mi'o ku'o citka
> You (imperative!) who are you and me eat.
> I think this idiom has connotations of being a command, but I'm not
> certain that this relative clause is grammatical.

The parser does not like it. Perhaps one of these:

    .i ko po'u mi'o ge'o citka
    .i ko po'u mi'o cu citka


    Paulo S. L. M. Barreto  --  Software Analyst  --  Unisys Brazil
    Standard disclaimer applies ("I do not speak for Unisys", etc.)
                       e'osai ko sarji la lojban.