Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sBGKT-0009acC; Tue, 16 May 95 09:42 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0sBGKT-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 5D7A4EBB ; Tue, 16 May 1995 8:41:56 +0100
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 02:41:12 -0400
Reply-To:     "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reflexivity
X-To:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199505160522.AA19805@access1.digex.net>
Content-Length: 1642
Lines: 40

la lojbab. cusku di'e
 > Looking at the debate on sevzi, I suspect that the wording of the definition
 > is the weak point.  "self-image" was specifically intended by me to refer to
 > reflexivity.  But English had no obvious word for it. "He loves his
 reflexive"
 > (???).
 >
 > I see no problem in my image of sevzi with saying
 > "le toknu cu lumci leri sevzi  as
 > being essentially identical in meaning to
 > "le toknu cu lumci ri"

ga roda zo'u lu le da sevzi li'u dunli zo da le selsni ginai ge roda da
ca'a sevzi da gi roda rode poi nadu de

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

> I can probably be convinced that there is indeed a separate concept of "Self"
> that sevzi should cover, and we need a different way to lujvo-ize a reflexive.

Is there some other gismu for "Ego" or a lujvo that could be formed?

> I might be inclined to just give "ri" a rafsi - "riz" is the only relevant
> one available though.  And the rafsi assignments for sevzi assumed the usage
> frequency implicit in its being the reflexive.

Hmm.  There are problems with {ri}--it wouldn't always be applicable,
e.g., if the places weren't adjacent.

And, of course, whatever is used, the meaning will be ambiguous.  I'm
inclined to support Jorge and just recommend sticking in {ri} and not
forming lujvo at all.

mu'onai mi'e. dilyn.