Okay. So, if I can say "Oni lavas min," or "Mi lavas min," then "Mi laviĝas," should just mean "I'm getting washed," without specifying the agent. I can live with that, though it makes 4b seem a little ambiguous to me. (It might not be exactly the semantic ambiguity that Wells had in mind.) With that comment, I think I've passed the point of diminishing returns on this issue. I'm back to splitting hairs. Thanks again for your help.

Regarding the ambiguity, it is useful I guess if you want to say "such and such needs to be washed" but you don't want to start handing out chores for fear of mutiny in the household

ceigered:Regarding the ambiguity, it is useful I guess if you want to say "such and such needs to be washed" but you don't want to start handing out chores for fear of mutiny in the household

"La platoj laviĝu!"?
I suppose that (verb+iĝi) = (iĝi+past participle)
is a good rule of thumb for getting the meaning of the iĝi verb. Then "La platoj laviĝu!" = "The dishes must get washed." What would have been the harm in allowing a construction like "La platoj iĝu lavitaj!" That is a downright unesperantish prohibition.

arkadio:What would have been the harm in allowing a construction like "La platoj iĝu lavitaj!" That is a downright unesperantish prohibition.

Not sure, but from what others seem to have indicated, it must be something to do with just making things simple, for everyone I guess. (the plates)+(become-imperative)+(wash-present participle) might be a foreign kind of construction to some people. And plus, if we say "igxu lav-taj", then we have the fun of having to mix tenses .

In other words, you could say "igxit" if you wanted, but it's just making things longer than they need, just like saying "lavitigi" (To cause to be washed) when you could say "lavi".

Its honestly not something I think bout much though, I tend to strive for simplicity (for my own sake ) but I didn't think there were any rules.

ceigered:
In other words, you could say "igxit" if you wanted

No you can't, *-iĝit doesn't make any sense because a passive participle requires a transitive verb (otherwise there's no object that can become a subject). What you probably mean is -itiĝ.

arkadio:What would have been the harm in allowing a construction like "La platoj iĝu lavitaj!" That is a downright unesperantish prohibition.

As far as I know there is no such prohibition, and these forms do crop up from time to time. It's just that when you use iĝi [verb]ita you're talking about coming into a state, whereas the esti [verb]ita is the passive which can relate to both states and actions; the difference between the passive of being and the passive of becoming. If you run \\b(far)?iĝ[iaou]s \\w+itaj?\\b through Tekstaro you'll find some results for that. In each case tho, the participle adjective shows general state, rather than functioning like the passive.

If you said "la teleroj iĝu lavitaj" that would translate as "the plates should become washed", where "washed" essentially shows the desired state of the plates. This is a different idea to actually getting washed though. If you want to show that, then use the passive. I can't see any reason you'd want to use iĝi for the passive and indeed it's impossible to function that way anyway.

darkweasel:

ceigered:
In other words, you could say "iĝit" if you wanted

No you can't, *-iĝit doesn't make any sense because a passive participle requires a transitive verb (otherwise there's no object that can become a subject). What you probably mean is -itiĝ.

Ah, yes, itiĝ - cheers for that.

See, another reason to use just "iĝ" - that way we don't have stupid people like me mixing "itiĝ" and "iĝit" around!

As far as I know there is no such prohibition, and these forms do crop up from time to time.

Doesn't the Fundamento decree that all passives be of the form esti + pass.part.?

In each case tho, the participle adjective shows general state, rather than functioning like the passive.

If the participle can function as a pure adjective (such as "blanka") and I can write "iĝi blanka" or "blankiĝi" then I should be able to write "iĝi lavita" instead of "laviĝi". (Perhaps I am misunderstanding something about the meaning of "iĝi.") As a practical matter, I agree that it isn't really important. But as an esthetic point, it seems absurdly arbitrary to bar the verb "to become" from a construction called "the passive of becoming." To me, it makes Esperanto a little less flexible and elegant. And I do value Esperanto for its flexibility and elegance.

If you said "la teleroj iĝu lavitaj" that would translate as "the plates should become washed", where "washed" essentially shows the desired state of the plates. This is a different idea to actually getting washed though.

In this context, I think of "become" and "get" as virtually synonymous." I am getting (becoming) tired." "The dishes should become washed," of course is awkward in English, but I understand it as meaning that the dishes should get washed. When you say that the dishes should be washed, you are specifying a state, and telling me that the dishes should be in that state. That's fine and clear. But you could also say that the dishes should get (become) washed. In doing so, you specify a state and tell me that the dishes have to enter or be put into that state. That is also perfectly clear to me, but apparently disallowed by the Fundamento.

arkadio:

tommjames:

arkadio:What would have been the harm in allowing a construction like "La platoj iĝu lavitaj!" That is a downright unesperantish prohibition.

As far as I know there is no such prohibition, and these forms do crop up from time to time.

Doesn't the Fundamento decree that all passives be of the form esti + pass.part.?

Yes. But "iĝu lavita!" is not a passive construction because "lavita" just functions as a normal state adjective. It's essentially the same as iĝu verda or iĝu dika. You wouldn't say there was anything passive going with those two, and there isn't with "iĝu lavita" either. The meaning of the participle adjective "lavita" is derived from the idea of passivity, that much is true. That doesn't make "iĝu lavita" a passive construction. It's a becoming construction; to all intents and purposes the same as "laviĝu".

arkadio:If the participle can function as a pure adjective (such as "blanka") and I can write "iĝi blanka" or "blankiĝi" then I should be able to write "iĝi lavita" instead of "laviĝi".

Correct. Exactly why PMEG describes malfermiĝi as iĝi malfermita.

Yes. But "iĝu lavita!" is not a passive construction because "lavita" just functions as a normal state adjective. It's essentially the same as iĝu verda or iĝu dika. You wouldn't say there was anything passive going with those two, and there isn't with "iĝu lavita" either. The meaning of the participle adjective "lavita" is derived from the idea of passivity, that much is true. That doesn't make "iĝu lavita" a passive construction. It's a becoming construction; to all intents and purposes the same as "laviĝu".

That is reasonable. "Li iĝis blanka" is not a passive construction. But I have been cautioned against similar constructions with passive participles. In addition to the expert I invoked earlier, Bertilo, responding to a related question, told me that "iĝi rompita," or "iĝi fermita" or something like that was illogical. The issue there was the same: The validity of a purely adjectival phase of "rompita." Logical nuances notwithstanding, it seems that all right-thinking folk regard "iĝi lavita" as bad style at least, so I will just try to avoid that sort of construction.