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 m0sAbic-0009acC; Sun, 14 May 95 14:20 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id EB84B6E1 ; Sun, 14 May 1995 13:20:17 +0100 Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 07:18:35 -0400 Reply-To: Dylan Thurston Sender: Lojban list From: Dylan Thurston Subject: Reflexivity X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1046 Lines: 28 Would anyone care to defend the use of lujvo with {sevzi} to fill the function of reflexives in ordinary languages? In a natural language, with nouns and verbs, the use of the word for "self" to make a reflexive is supportable--there is a definite actor "self" refers back to. (How do other languages do this, btw? I don't think most use literally the word for "ego", making this usage even worse malglico.) But in Lojban, the equivalent of a reflexive is just a bridi with some of the terbridi filled with identical values. There is not necessarily an "agent" to any bridi, the agent need not be in the first terbridi. There need not even be any sumti to which {sevzi} can even apply. {sevzi} is sevzi sez se'i self x1 is a self/ego/id/identity-image of x2 (cf. cmavo list mi, prenu, menli, jgira) This seems to apply only to intelligent beings, since only those can have an "identity-image" (etc.). May I suggest lujvo with {du} instead? Or maybe the definition of {sevzi} should be radically changed instead. co'o mi'e. dilyn.