Re: On and around "let"

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.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