Re: On and around "let"

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la dn cusku di'e

> > 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