Date:  Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:21:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711060321.WAA10990@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>
Subject:      Re: 'your will' as sumti
X-To:         Lojban List <LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1449
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov  5 22:21:34 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

At 1997-11-05 15:48, Rick Nylander wrote:

>This is done without referring to the ref-gram, but how about <<ko gasnu
>le do djica>>?
>("Do what you desire" - "Do your desires")  Did I get that right?

<<mukti>> is better, as LDC mentioned. But I'm curious about <<le do
djica>>, which doesn't seem grammatical to me, since <<do djica>> doesn't
appear to be a selbri. But the Lojban parser seems to have no trouble
with <<ko gasnu le do djica>>.

><<mukti>> (x3) seems to specify the agent which is motivated, but does
>not indicate who is doing the motivation (x3 could be doing someone
>else's will under duress.)

That's appropriate, it doesn't matter what the cause of the motivation
is. It's "those things you are motivated to do [by anything/anyone]".

>> ... But which of <<ti>>,
>> <<ta>>, <<tu>> do I use? I can't point to these actions.
>
><<ta>>, <<ti>> and <<tu>> are not applicable (I think).  At least
>according to all the officially written stuff, you have to be pointing
>at something (or otherwise indicating what you mean).

Um. That's what I thought...

>I'd like to point out an ambiguity (perhaps intentional) in "do what you
>will."  I could also mean "do (now) whatever you are going to do (in the
>future)."  I.e. "do what you will do."

It could, but it doesn't. The original is 'fais ce que voudras', perhaps
'do what you like' would be a better translation.


--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/