Re: Inherently Reflexive Verbs (was: mental masturbation)

Kristian wrote:

> I realize that some people would have come to the point where
> whenever they see the mental masturbation thread, they would
> simply delete - missing out on a potential conlang gem.  So I'm
> forwarding my last post again to the list but with another subject
> title in case this happens to be a gem.
I think it is.

Indeed, I'm curious what others have to say
> about inherently reflexive words.
Inherently reflexive as in that they can only be performed by the agent
and to himself?  and they can't be put in passive form?

Yawn?  fidget?  But these seem merely intransitive rather than
reflexive.  Are you looking for words that seem to imply transitive
action but that can't be performed on anyone/thing but the speaker?

Just some other possibilities in English:  "to wake up."  Could that
be considered inherently reflexive?  I suppose you could say that
you "wake up someone," but in our idiom it's usually "wake someone up,"
whereas we say "he woke up," not "he woke himself up."  But then again,
this might simply be intransitive, and not reflexive.  I think
"masturbate" is another word that WAS considered intransitive, like
"fidget," until we started speaking of mutual masturbation, masturbating
your partner... the celebrated subject of Boudewijn's Denden poem and
my Teonaht interpretation.  (Yes, sexual topics are I hope allowable
on this listserv!)

As for how to say "mental masturbation" in one's conlang... the term
(as we have seen!) is just RIDDEN with negative connotations.  It
means to indulge oneself in a worthless mental pursuit, which is how
Matt's psychiatrist meant it, however un-ironically.  This is what
Brian Betty meant to challenge.

(and speaking of deleting "gems," or "oopses," rather, my apologetic
"Making Asses of (some) of us" was self-flagellating, and not just
another branch to add to the flames that were directed at (both)
Brians.  But enough of that.  I'm already still myeebish)

So if we're to come up with the notion of "mental masturbation," do
we retain the negative meaning, or do we create a positive meaning?
This is where conlanging can, I think, contribute to a new mindset.
I had told somebody in a private note that I wanted to invent a
Teonaht word for "mental illness" that captured all the seriousness
that this ailment entailed without repeating some of the pejoration
that popular usage often sticks on it.  (NO LET'S NOT REVISIT THAT
THREAD!  This was used as an example!)  So if "mental masturbation"
is what we do when we make up languages, if we are pleasing our
intellects at no visible material profit either to ourselves or
society, if we aren't making babies or winning Guggenheims, then how
would our various conlangs express it?  The exchange between Kristian
and Marcos is really interesting below:

> Kristian Jensen wrote:
> >Marcos Franco wrote:
> >
> >>How do you say "mental masturbation" in your conlang?
> >>
> >>In UTL it would be said "mentala masturbio", though having -at- as
> >>passive suffix, I was wondering what could mean "masturbatio" in
> >>UNL. It would mean literally "the action of being masturbated",
> >>but since masturbate/masturbi is a reflexive verb (by definition)
> >>this would make not much sense in a logical language like UTL.
> >>Btw, I could not logically say "to masturbate another person" as
> >>masturbi is reflexive. Btw, do you say in English "I masturbate"
> >>or "I masturbate myself"?
> >>
> >>Well, as we have seen some problems may get aroused with the verb
> >>masturbate if we let it reflexive, so I think it's better having
> >>it defined as transitive and let no reflexive verbs in UTL. But
> >>how can "masturbate" be transitive if its definition is "to
> >>provide oneself sexual pleasure"?
> >>
> >>I'm afraid this is becoming another mental masturbation...
Sally:  it was intransitive originally.  Like "fidget."

> >I believe the problem arises because the verb masturbate is indeed
> >inherently reflexive, and I think inherently reflexive words cannot
> >be passive at the same time. I'm not sure about this but I think
> >that in many ways, the reflexive functions like voice much as the
> >passive does, and one cannot afterall have two voices in a verb at
> >the same time - that is, one cannot have a verb that is both active
> >and passive at the same time, nor can one have a verb that is both
> >passive and reflexive at the same time.
> >
> >I can't think of many words in English that are like that
> >(inherently reflexive), but there are quite a lot in Tagalog and
> >Boreanesian (my conlang). In fact, these two languages do not mark
> >voice at all in verbs.
> >
> >Below are some examples from Tagalog and Boreanesian
> (respectively):
> >
> ><ligo> <pLau?>
> >"washing oneself"
> >
> ><hilamos> <Lka?>
> >"freshening oneself after waking up (e.g. by washing one's face)"
> >
> ><hinga> <psih>
> >"relieving oneself (as in resting or relaxing)"
> >
> >[where <L> marks a lateral fricative, and <?> marks stiff phonation
> >and/or a glottal stop]
> >
> >In Boreanesian, though, <pLau?> <Lka?> and <psih> are better
> >glossed as nouns. That is, "one who washes oneself", "one who
> >refreshes oneself", and "one who relieves oneself" respectively. So
> >if I were to use <pLau?> in a simple sentence:
> >
> >pLau?                     kih
> >[one who washes oneself]  [1.]
> >lit. "I'm the one who washes myself"
> >"I wash myself"
> >
> >I guess, I have yet to make a word for masturbation though. Such a
> >word would have to be glossed as a noun too, with a reflexive
> >inclination. Perhaps, <nnieh> "one who gives oneself sexual
> >pleasures". Yes, that sounds right. Oh the joy of creating a new
> >word!
> >
> >-kristian- 8-)
> >