No Subject

I'm sure some creative soul could come up with one, if we could agree on
what it meant.

>> I might be inclined to just give "ri" a rafsi - "riz" is the only relevant
>> one available though.  And the rafsi assignments for sevzi assumed the usage
>> frequency implicit in its being the reflexive.
>
>Hmm.  There are problems with {ri}--it wouldn't always be applicable,
>e.g., if the places weren't adjacent.

True, but you can use conversion to make them adjacent.  But I agree -
sevzi was designed and hhas been traditionally used for the purpose of
reflexive tanru/ lujvo-making, and that should determine the definition
- or at least the definaition should encompass that concept as a
minimum.

>And, of course, whatever is used, the meaning will be ambiguous.  I'm
>inclined to support Jorge and just recommend sticking in {ri} and not
>forming lujvo at all.

The English prefix "self-" and the Russian reflexive suffix "cya" are
equally ambiguous.  But the fact that languages tend to make reflexive
lujvo implies that it would be could that Lojban have a way of
optionally doing so.  You can use "ri" or whatever if you want - indeed
you can avoid using any lujvo at all - most Lojban spoken conversation
not including Nick Nicholas (%^) uses almost no lujvo of any type, or at
most uses ad hoc ones that we devise on the fly.

lojbab