Re: Reflexivity

[Dylan Thurston <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

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.)