Re: Reflexive & Reciprocal Marked on the Verb

>I am collaborating on an agglutinating conlang with polypersonal agreement
>(verbs agree with their Subject; with their Primary-or-Direct Object if
there is
>one; and sometimes with their Secondary-or-Indirect Object if there is one.)
>
>In this 'lang the verb's agreement-markers indicate the semantic role of the
>Subject and the Direct Object.
>
>One thing it can indicate is that the Subject, and/or the Object, is both the
>Agent and the Patient of the clause.
>
>Thus, if the clause is reflexive or reciprocal, no additional marking is
needed to
>establish that it must be EITHER reflexive OR reciprocal.
>
>However, this system can't tell "reflexive" apart from "reciprocal".
This seems to be a problem I might face too. My (currently nameless) loglang
project has similar detail'd argument marking, except by means of multiple
cases.

Two observations: the singular is unambiguous; and in plurals involving more
than two, there's a possibility for yet finer distinctions, eg. pairwise /
circular / communal reciprocity (tho I can't think of a verb which would
allow distinguishing the latter two senses in a non-contrived way; most seem
to be suited just for one or the another).

Verbal voice works here too to resolve at least the basic situation, but I
aim for no voice marking whatsoever. Focusing on number seems to provide
another solution. Suppose I had a collectiv form distinct from a regular
plural (it happens I alreddy have this same distinction with conjunction);
then I could simply proceed in any possible case as in "the cattle takes
care of itself" (collectiv reciprocal) vs. "the cows take care of
themselves" (plural reflexiv).

John Vertical