As a side note, that cautionary dictionary entry, if anything, understates just how spectacularly insulting uljíra is, adjective-wise. But then, it was written by a non-native speaker of Eldraeic, even if a native speaker of the Trade dialect.
Its literal meaning is “choiceless1” – and not so due to external forces. Jír, recall, is the root of jírileth, with its important literal meaning.
That’s right up there with “Defaulter” in terms of Things To Say To An Imperial That Will Result In The Coroner Declaring Your Ensuing Death A Suicide.
1. And you can consider that in the context of that certain old saying daráv xíjirár; jaqef vigínár: a sophont chooses, a servile complies.
…the eldrae are gonna be a bit angry at the English language (with corresponding implications for what its speakers must be like) for using the same word for “the standard action” and “breaking a contract”.
(This was a half-dream thought that I decided might be kinda important for Earth Fanfic but might be more relevantly discussed here first.)
(Apparently the semantic pathway is [something to the effect of] “breaking a contract” → “not doing the contract” → “not doing anything” → “what happens when you don’t do anything” → “what happens without specific action otherwise” → “the standard action, absent deviations”, with most of the previous steps still somewhat extant in the language. This makes it slightly more reasonable, though the first and last are probably still the most salient meanings.)
Well, if you walked an eldrae through that logic chain, I’d guess they’d calm down a little, before pointing out that English assumes a soph will do nothing — when being able to do by act of will is intrinsically part of sophoncy.
They might calm down a little more if you point out that adherence to contract is an act of will for unmodded apes, whereas a descendant of the drake-marked must make an effort of will not to balance the scales precisely.
They’ll still sneer grandiosely and consider us pathetic and pitiable, but they might concede that the language’s assumptions match the typical brains of the primitive baselines and nearbaselines using it.
(Even long before philosophers were making formal attempts at the is-ought problem, it seemed clear that the universe was dropping some very loud hints.)
In the technical sense, no, insofar as the general philosophical stance there is that assuming obligations, even indefinite-term nonmodifiable obligations, is an exercise of one’s power of choice and therefore cannot be opposed to it.
What people might think of your being in that particular situation, on the other hand, is a metaphorical matter…
It is… annoying, but it’s not the weirdest quirk natural languages have ever thrown up. And, yes, probably says something terribly psychological.