From lojbab@access.digex.net  Sat Mar  6 22:44:51 2010
Date: Tue May 23 03:10:53 1995
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Subject:      Re: Reflexivity
To: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 23 03:10:53 1995
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab@access.digex.net
Message-ID: <USsD2d34RPD.A.DfE.jt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

>If {le da sevzi} is the same as {da}, then {da sevzi da} is always
>true--just like {du} (though {sevzi} may be true in more cases).  That
>is, {sevzi} includes identity, {dunli fi zi'o}.
>
>Now, maybe we do want something that says "x and y are the identical
>object" that isn't the mathematical equality.

mintu

sevzi was included in the language for use in tanru and lujvo.  The
meaning of the standalone gismu is to some extent secondary.

My understanding/concept of reflexives as actually used in language is
that the reflex is not necessarily an identity with the original, but an
image of the original.  Thus you can gaze upon oneself in a mirror
(sevzi catlu)

>But then it shouldn't include "ego" in its definition.

Not being a German philosopher or psychologist, I have no problem
calling ego and id part of my self-image.  And in usage, one can examine
ones own ego metaphorically like one examines ones physical image in a
mirror.

This may be a weak definition of either "ego" or "self-image" - but as I
said - I ain't a philospher - more an observer of actual language use.

lojbab