From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:47 2010 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 10:52:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Dylan Thurston To: Logical Language Group Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Subject: Re: Reflexivity X-From-Space-Date: Sun May 15 10:52:20 1995 X-From-Space-Address: dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Message-ID: On Mon, 15 May 1995, Logical Language Group wrote: > Well there is some looseness to lujvo semantics. But in any case, I think > that sevzi-broda implies some kind of reflecive on the x1 place while > sevzi-se-broda would imply one on the x2 place etc. It is not a question > of agenthood, but of pointing out the place to reflex. Well, I understand looseness, but this just seems a little ridiculous to me. If I say {le sezlu'i toknu} for "the self-cleaning oven" (to use a lujvo from the jvoste), I don't see any self, ego, or identity-image in sight. To say this as a bridi would be le toknu ri lumci or as a sumti le toknu poi ke'a ke'a lumci I don't know how to say it as a sumti without a relative clause. But in any case, {sevzi} does not appear. Which is not to deny the usefulness of lujvo formed with it. I just think either the definition should be changed or another gismu should be chosen to make it less malglico. Not all the lujvo in the jvoste are as inappropriate: {sezypa'i}, for instance, could be glossed as {da prami le da sevzi}; anything that can love itself has a "self-image", and can be said to love that. (Should {sezypa'i} have negative connotations, btw?) But if you gloss {sezlu'i} as {da lumci le da sevzi de} it really seems a bit strained, unless {sevzi} can apply to ovens as well; but then I don't know what it would mean other than {du}. co'o mi'e. dilyn. (I really think there is a little vowel there (it's a vowel, whether or not Lojban calls it one), I believe because of the awkwardness of the l-n combination otherwise. But it's often hard to tell the combination "short vowel+glide" from "vocalic glide" in any case.)