Re: THEORY: third-person imperatives

"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:
> Exactly - and not just Lutheran theology.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that that was *solely* Lutheran, only that
I only know about in Lutheranism.

> I guess, indeed, this must be common to all 'mainstream'
> Christian theology.
Probly.

> So, to get back to the start of this thread: there is IMHO a need for a
> language to be able to express such forms and, indeed, several conlange=
rs
> have told us how their langs do that.  We can't, I think, simply scrap =
them
> and rephrase with 2nd person imperatives.
Right.  In Waty=E1=EDsa, I use the "imperative/jussive" prefix for all th=
ree
persons (at least in theory - I can't see much use in the first person
singular), there's no difference between a blessing and a command, nor
any gramaticalized "polite" imperative.  The Suttyaisai (I've decided to
use the native word, rather than the translation for the people) are
usually pretty direct and egalitarian, "formal/informal" commands.  To
soften the command, making it a request, I'm not sure exactly what would
be done, but I think that a verb meaning something like "I'd like for
you to" or "It would be good if you", or perhaps a pseudo-question,
"will you ...?"

--=20
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-name: NikTailor