Re: 3rd-person imperative

> Jameld has a feature that is surely not unique, yet I don't recall
> seeing it elsewhere in any other lang. This is the fact that the
> imperative is not restricted to the 2nd person.
My (yet to be named, written up properly etc. etc.) language has the
general form:

sentence ::= sentence-body sentence-final-particle

where the sentence final particle indicates the interpretation of the
sentence body.  So, for instance, if the body of the sentence is:

 Xi ve royklo    = X [is/are] red

We can have the following variations:

 Xi ve royklo se. = X [is/are] red
 Xi ve royklo si! = X *is* red (emphatic assertion)
 Xi ve royklo no. = X [is] not red
 Xi ve royklo ka? = [is] X red?
 Xi ve royklo de! = May-it-be-so-that: X [is] red
 Xi ve royklo di! = Make-it-so-that: X [is] red

etc. (the list goes on).  Anyway, in answer to the point is that either
the "de" or the "di" particles could be used to construct 3rd-person
imperatives. "di" has a stronger implication that the listener ought to
do something about the matter, but neither mandates that they should.
The translation of "let them eat cake" would not imply that the listener
should feed the people cake, merely that the speaker desires the state
of people eating cake to be reached.

If the speaker wants to make explicit who should carry out the task,
then they can:

 Xi ve royklo su ha di! =
  Make-it-be-so-that: X [becomes] red by-agent A
  where A is/are someone(s)/thing(s) previously identified, possibly
  the listener(s).

Cheers,


Matthew

P.S: The above vocabulary is extremely liable to change; my ideas about
the grammar and morphology of this new language are much firmer than the
vocabulary.  In fact, about 50% of the above words were invented on the
spot either because I can't remember what words I assigned to those
roles (I don't have my notes with me), or because I haven't assigned
them yet.