Re: Reflexivity

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la dilyn cusku di'e

> Would anyone care to defend the use of lujvo with {sevzi} to fill the
> function of reflexives in ordinary languages?

I wouldn't, not so much because of the meaning but because of the lujvo
making process. Making lujvo is not automatic, i.e. given a selbri, there
is not a direct way of making the reflexive form with {sevzi}. One
problem is that it is not always x1 and x2 that have to be identified,
e.g. "give myself". Is {mi sezdunda} {mi dunda mi} or {mi dunda fi mi}?
Even if there was an algorithm for it, the fact that you have to consider
rafsi makes it hard to come up with the "right" lujvo. If it's a simple
gismu, it might be easy to simply add sez- or sezy-, but if it's already
a lujvo you may need to consider bracketing. All in all, it is usually
easier to use explicitly {ri} or {ra} rather than make a lujvo.

> 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.)

In Spanish, the word for "self" in this sense is the same word as "same",
i.e. "mismo/misma". For "self" in the sense of "ego" we simply use the
first person pronoun "yo" as a noun (also we can use the Latin "ego").

> 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.

I agree.

> 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.).

I don't know whether {sevzi} works for the prefix auto-. It should, but
I agree that the definition seems to indicate another meaning.

> May I suggest lujvo with {du} instead?

I don't think {du} is a good choice, it is mainly for mathematical
formulas (or formulae, if you prefer) and the less it shows up in the
real world, the better.

> Or maybe the definition of {sevzi} should be radically changed instead.

Maybe. The problem really is that there is no simple way to make a lujvo
that only identifies two places. If the VOhAs had rafsi, there could be
some convention for this, but they don't.

Jorge