Re: imperative mood

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

la kris cusku di'e

> Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it seems to me that these are
> all 3rd person imperatives (.e'u ko'a gasnu) :
>
>   let him do it
>   make him do it
>   tell him to do it
>   have him do it
>   may he do it!

The first is the only one that I would call 3rd person imperative
in some contexts. The last one is third person but usually not
imperative and the others are clear second person imperatives.

When the first means "allow him to do it" it is second person.
It is third person imperative in a context like "I won't do it,
you do it or let him do it", where "you" doesn't have any control
over whether "him" does it or not. Could one say "you or him do it",
I guess not.

> To me these all have a range of distinct meanings.  In the second person
> imperative it's clear that you want the listener to do a certain thing.  But
> it seems to me that a 3rd p. imperative really is a disguised 2nd person
> imperative.  You're not *really* ordering 3 to do something, you're ordering
> 2 to do something to or for 3; or maybe you're just wishing aloud to 2 about
 3.

Those are not 3rd person imperatives. In third person imperatives the
listener is not involved. For example "let there be light" would be
a 3rd person imperative in a language which has it. It is not telling
anyone to allow there to be light, it is just an idiom that English
uses instead of the 3rd person imperative.

> The existence of a 3rd imperative seems to me to be a source of bad
> ambiguity in some natlangs.  Does ".e'u ko'a cu gugde cliva" mean "allow
> them to emigrate" or "exile them"?

I don't think it means either of them. The listener isn't required
to do anything, the listener is just being informed that the speaker
suggests that they leave the country. The listener neither has to allow
them nor force them to leave.

> It's an important distinction,
> especially if ko'a cu so'imei gi'e djica so'i frica.  In Japanese there's a
> verb affix "sase" that has exactly this ambiguity; is that true of other
> languages with 3rd imperatives?

In Esperanto there is a 3rd person imperative. "Ili forlasu la landon"
means that they should leave the country, but it can also be a suggestion
or a request with the right context.

> (BTW I think "let's" is a special case.  It's only historically a
> contraction of "let us"; I can't think of any situation where you could
> contract "let us" or decontract "let's" without either considerably changing
> the meaning or sounding archaic.

But it's the same phenomenon with the third person, only that there's
no contraction for it. Sometimes it really means "allow", and sometimes
it is just the form that the third person imperative takes.

> (A flea and a fly in a flue, were trapped,
> so what could they do?  "Let us flee", said the fly; "Let us fly", said the
> flea; so they flew through a flaw in the flue.))
>

i lo civla ku joi lo sfani lo tubnu
cu rinju  i gasnu ma
i lu e'u mi'o rivbi li'u se cusku le sfani
i lu e'u mi'o vofli li'u se cusku le civla
i cysy vofli pa'o lo fenra be le tubnu

It doesn't translate so good...

co'o mi'e xorxes