RE: [lojban] Re: I saw three kinds of dogs

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Pierre:
> On Wednesday 04 June 2003 13:23, John Cowan wrote:
> > Invent Yourself scripsit:
> > > For most people, there can be any number of stereotypical dogs, and each
> > > one they refer to as le'e gerku. For you, le'e gerku is the stereotype
> > > itself, of which there can only be one. (Let's not get distracted with
> > > the boundary cases.)
> >
> > I think there is only one le'e gerku for a given speaker at a given moment,
> > but it can vary across speakers and across time 
> 
> I agree. It can refer to a stereotype, but really means "the typical dog of 
> the dogs which I have in mind". For me, le'e xelso cu zgipli le'e 
> relmeiskojgita, where le'e xelso is my stereotype of a Greek but le'e 
> relmeiskojgita is not my stereotype of a relmeiskojgita but a baglamas or 
> bouzouki. (I play the octave mandolin and the guitar, so my stereotypical 
> relmeiskojgita is a mandolin or 12-string guitar.) For you, maybe le'e 
> xelso cu tafstika 

I don't really understand. On the one hand, you're saying le'e is
semantically regular, so means "lo'e cmima be le'e". On the other
hand, you're agreeing it varies across speakers and times, unlike
lo'e, and your use of le'e xelso seems not to be consistent with your
definition. Why is le'e xelso your stereotype of a Greek, if 
properties predicated of it are typical properties of the Greeks
you have in mind? It yields the stereotype only if the Greeks you
have in mind happen to be stereotypical ones. OTOH, I take your
le'e relmeiskojgita to be describing what is typical of a certain
particular group of relmeiskojgita, viz bazouki, and saying that
they tend to be played by Greeks. That seems legit.

--And.