Each question relates to the German sentence just above it. I hope these apparently five questions are merely asking the same question five times.
- die Bohnen fünf Minuten kochen lassen
Is die Bohnen the object of kochen or lassen?
- Ich lasse mich nicht belügen.
Is mich the object of belügen (in which case it is an indirect reciprocal) or of lasse (in which case a direct reciprocal)?
- Auch einer der Männer, die neben dem Wagen gingen, hatte sich abhängen lassen und ging jetzt auf einer Höhe mit mir.
Is sich the object of abhängen or lassen?
- sich einen Bart/die Haare wachsen lassen
Is sich the dative complement (or indirect object) of wachsen (someone allows: the beard growing to himself) or the dative complement of lassen (someone allows to himself: the beard growing)?
- Man fragte ihn von Rechtswegen, was er [Candide] lieber wolle: sechsunddreißigmal durch das ganze Regiment Spießruten laufen oder sich auf einmal zwölf bleierne Kugeln durchs Hirn jagen lassen.
Is sich the dative complement of jagen (Candide allows: someone’s driving bullets into his brain) or the dative complement of lassen (Candide allows to himself: bullets being driven into the brain)?
To answer the question, you don't have to read this background or any postscript.
In English, we may have letting someone come or letting someone cook the beans but not letting cook the beans. We might however hear, Well, let it cook for five minutes, in which case cook suddenly becomes intransitive with the same meaning as be cooked (in which cooked is transitive).
But not every English verb will accommodate this switching. For example, we would not say Let Tom call in the sense of Tom rufen lassen. (I am assuming that Tom rufen lassen is having someone call Tom. Letting Tom call will always mean letting Tom call someone else.)
So I am wondering which of the following is the case:
(a) In German, any typically transitive verb can become implicitly passive and thus intransitive in a lassen context. In die Bohnen fünf Minuten kochen lassen, for example, a German speaker will see letting the beans cook (be cooked) for five minutes (which has essentially the same structure as ihn kommen lassen). Likewise, in ihn rufen lassen, a German speaker will see letting him be called.
(b) In German, we allow lassen to take an infinitive with only an object (patient) but no subject (agent). In die Bohnen fünf Minuten kochen lassen, therefore, a German speaker sees letting an unspecified agent cook the beans for five minutes (or allowing the cooking of the beans). In ihn rufen lassen, he or she would see letting an unspecified agent call him (or allowing the calling of him).
Note: By speaking of “what a German speaker sees” I am not trying to confine meaning to psychology. I will be equally happy to receive native speaker intuition or any other relevant support for (a) or (b). (For instance there might be evidence by analogy to another language in which the direct and the indirect reciprocals look different.) Of course, if neither is right, please let me know what is.
I am realizing that 4 might actually have these many potential syntactic analyses because a question arises not only in respect of sich but also of Bart.
(a1) lassen[sich, Bart] wachsen[-, -] (allow to himself a beard's growing)
wachsen is passive and intransitive. sich is the dative complement of lassen. Bart is the accusative object of lassen but the agent of wachsen.
(a2) lassen[-, Bart] wachsen[sich, -] (allow a beard's growing to himself)
wachsen is passive and intransitive. sich is the dative complement of wachsen. Bart is the accusative object of lassen but the agent of wachsen.
(b1) lassen[-, -] wachsen[sich, Bart] (allow growing a beard to himself)
wachsen is active and transitive. sich is the dative complement of wachsen. Bart is the accusative object of wachsen. (wachsen does not have an express agent.)
(b2) lassen[sich, -] wachsen[-, Bart] (allow to hisemlf growing a beard)
wachsen is active and transitive. sich is, however, a dative complement of lassen. Bart is the accusative object of wachsen. (Again, wachsen does not have an express agent.)
b3) lassen[-, sich] wachsen[-, Bart] (allow himself growing a beard)
wachsen is active and transitive. sich is the accusative object of lassen and the agent of wachsen. Bart is the accusative object of wachsen. (I guess in this case we don't know whose beard we are talking about. Someone might have permitted himself the silly hobby of tending a goat's beard. Therefore, (b3) cannot be what a German speaker "sees" in a typical instance of sich einen Bart wachsen lassen.)
Why did I reverse the beans and cook to create an example of something not used in English, i.e. letting cook the beans?
I see in the comments section that at least three people have had this question. If you are having this question, it means indeed you have not grasp the very thing under consideration. So, well you might ask.
Very quickly, letting cook the beans is meant to be a schematic representation of a syntactic structure not used with English let, but common for German lassen, namely:
ALET + let + [null] + infinitive + PINF : e.g. you let [null] do it
where ALET is the agent (subject) of let, and PINF is the patient (object) of the infinitive.
One catch is that, because of the ordinary inversion of verb and object in a dependent context, German would have this surface structure:
ALET + lassen (lässt) + [null] + PINF + infinitive
An example of German in this structure is:
ihn rufen lassen
when this means having him summoned.
That it could have some other meaning not relevant to the topic (e.g. having him summon another) need not detain anyone.