From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:44:53 2010
Date:         Sun, 14 May 1995 07:18:35 -0400
From: Dylan Thurston <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Reflexivity
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-From-Space-Date: Sun May 14 07:21:15 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <A8KPq4YcHa.A.EiE.lt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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.