On and around "let"
Paulo Barreto
I wonder how the following expressions are translated into Lojban:
1. Let's eat.
2. Let me in!
3. I'll have my hair cut.
4. I'll let her cut my hair.
5. She cut my hair! (where "cut" is an imperative, not a typo)
6. Let [may] they do their job themselves!
The question here is: how do you express third person variations of
imperative/volitive? They may even be uncommon (not sure about that)
in English, but in other languages they are quite often.
Note: by the 1st expression I mean the equivalent of Japanese
"tabemasho", or Spanish/Portuguese "comamos". By the 6th, I mean
the equivalent of Spanish "Hagan ellos mismos su trabajo!". By the
5th, I mean something similar to "You! Cut my hair!".
co'o mi'e paulos.
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.
jo...@phyast.pitt.edu
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
Don Wiggins
> I wonder how the following expressions are translated into Lojban:
.i mi stidi
I suggest
> 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.
> 2. Let me in!
.i ko curmi lenu mi nerkla
You (imperative!) allow the event of I inwardly-go.
> 3. I'll have my hair cut.
.i .ai lemi kerfa ba selka'a
(Intension) My hair will be be-cut.
> 4. I'll let her cut my hair.
.i mi curmi lenu ko'a ka'argau lemi kerfa
I permit the event of she is-cutting-agent of my hair.
> 5. She cut my hair! (where "cut" is an imperative, not a typo)
I'm confused by this one. Do you mean to command the third person to do
something, without actually speaking to them? Surely if one orders another
to do something, one must address that person directly as the second person,
therefore "ko" is appropriate. I don't reminder anything in Spanish idiom
which would equate to this.
Perhaps you mean to address the second person to bring about the action
of the third as in:
Get her to cut my hair!
which I would translate as
.i ko minde ko'a lenu ri ka'argau lemi kerfa
if the place structures are correct.
> 6. Let the[m] do their job themselves!
.i ko curmi lenu ko'e gunka kei lenu do na sidju
You (imperative) permit the event that they work under the conditions of the
event that you do not help (them to do their work).
I think this idiom implies that you do not assist/interfere or perhaps that
they are the only ones who work:
.i ko curmi lenu ko'e po'o gunka
You (imperative) permit the event that they only (and no others) work.
co'o mi'e dn.
Paulo Barreto
> > 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
jo...@phyast.pitt.edu
> > 5. She cut my hair! (where "cut" is an imperative, not a typo)
> I'm confused by this one. Do you mean to command the third person to do
> something, without actually speaking to them? Surely if one orders another
> to do something, one must address that person directly as the second person,
> therefore "ko" is appropriate. I don't reminder anything in Spanish idiom
> which would equate to this.
In Spanish it would be: "Que ella me corte el pelo!"
That's not really a third person imperative (it's the present subjunctive),
but it does do the work of the imperative.
In Esperanto, the imperative is used directly: "Sxi tondu mian haron!"
> Perhaps you mean to address the second person to bring about the action
> of the third as in:
> Get her to cut my hair!
> which I would translate as
> .i ko minde ko'a lenu ri ka'argau lemi kerfa
> if the place structures are correct.
In English, you do need to add some auxiliary verb, but there is no
reason why in Lojban you should have to do that. You can just say:
e'o ko'a katna le mi kerfa
<request> She cut my hair.
[Note on {katna}: The place structure is strange. The x1 is supposed
to be the instrument rather than the agent. If we take this seriously
then {ka'argau} means "x1 uses x2 to cut x3", so you would need to add
a {fi} in front of {le mi kerfa}. I would prefer to use {katna} as "x1
cuts x2", and use {sepi'o} if an instrument place is needed.]
> > 6. Let the[m] do their job themselves!
> .i ko curmi lenu ko'e gunka kei lenu do na sidju
> You (imperative) permit the event that they work under the conditions of the
> event that you do not help (them to do their work).
> I think this idiom implies that you do not assist/interfere or perhaps that
> they are the only ones who work:
> .i ko curmi lenu ko'e po'o gunka
> You (imperative) permit the event that they only (and no others) work.
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".
Jorge
Chris Bogart
>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
\/ cbo...@quetzal.com
ucleaar
> [Note on {katna}: The place structure is strange. The x1 is supposed
> to be the instrument rather than the agent. If we take this seriously
> then {ka'argau} means "x1 uses x2 to cut x3", so you would need to
> add a {fi} in front of {le mi kerfa}. I would prefer to use {katna}
> as "x1 cuts x2", and use {sepi'o} if an instrument place is needed.]
The existing structure is better. Cutting at minimum requires a blade
and a cuttee. There needn't be an agent.
---
And
John Cowan
> I don't think there is much more than that to wrap the mind around. Even
> if it's not used much, English does have or had some sort of third person
> imperative. The tense of the verb in "long live the queen" is the same as
> the one in "live long and prosper". Whether we call it imperative or something
> else doesn't really matter.
How's that again? "Live long and prosper" is straight 2nd person. Note
Spock's reply: "I shall do neither, for I have killed my captain and my
friend." This reply is 1st person, indicating that Spock takes the sentence
to be directed at him, with implicit 2nd person subject. Of course, there is
more ".aise'inai" in this than true imperative.
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org
jo...@phyast.pitt.edu
> 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 don't think there is much more than that to wrap the mind around. Even
if it's not used much, English does have or had some sort of third person
imperative. The tense of the verb in "long live the queen" is the same as
the one in "live long and prosper". Whether we call it imperative or something
else doesn't really matter. In a sense it's true that the command is always
directed to the second person, if you include the Fate Weaver as a possible
audience, but there is no need that the second person be an argument of the
bridi.
> 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".
I don't know how that could work anyway, since Lojban doesn't even have one
catchall third-person version of {do}. There would have to be one for each
of ko'a, ko'e, ri, ra, by, cy, etc.
What's more inconsistent is that mi, mi'o, mi'a, ma'a and do'o don't
have an imperative version. But they are not needed, just as {ko} is
not really needed. In my opinion, the "imperativity" does not really
belong in a sumti.
Consider these:
au do lo plise mi dunda
<wish> You give me an apple.
a'o do lo plise mi dunda
<hope> You give me an apple.
e'o do lo plise mi dunda
<request> You give me an apple.
e'u do lo plise mi dunda
<suggestion> You give me an apple.
e'a do lo plise mi dunda
<permission> You give me an apple.
ei do lo plise mi dunda
<obligation> You give me an apple.
They have different forms in normal English: "I wish you would give
me an apple", "I hope you give me an apple", "Please, give me an apple",
"How about giving me an apple?", "You may give me an apple", "You must
give me an apple".
Why should "<command> You give me an apple" be special? Just because
there is a special tense in English and other languages for that?
Of course, {ko} may be useful because it's nice and short, but there
wouldn't really be any loss in expressive power without it.
la paulos cusku di'e
> 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.
The gismu {cisma} now doesn't have an x2 place. Some of the examples in
the lessons use gismu from before the time when the place structures
settled down. The lujvo {cismyfra} for "x1 smiles at x2 (under
conditions x3)" is a possible replacement.
To indicate who the request is aimed at, the attitudinal can be
placed after the sumti:
la kim cu cismyfra do e'o
That Kim smile at you, I ask you.
That is still something strange to say, since the agent here is Kim,
so it is strange to ask you that she smile. It's like saying "be smiled
at by Kim".
Something like the following would make more sense to me:
e'o do cismygau la kim
Please make Kim smile.
Jorge
jo...@phyast.pitt.edu
> The existing structure is better. Cutting at minimum requires a blade
> and a cuttee. There needn't be an agent.
There's already {dakfu} for non-agentive cutting.
Jorge
i ue le jinci enai la lorenas cu katna le pinji be le ly speni