> Given your discussion, I would have thought that {la odisix} (yuck,
> ptui!) would have been the perfect thing for the prototytpe and {me
> la odisix} for "is a version of the Odyssey," so {lo me la odisix}
> for "a version of the Odyssey" You want an individual for the
> prototype and this is as close as you can get to that, and {me} is
> just about perfect for "is a version of." Only {lai} could look
> better than {la}, and there I fear we may have oversold the
> mass-prototype, so that simple prototypes can't work anymore (without
> a lot of reeducation -- which And might better be doing than trying
> to make yet another prototype word in Lojban).
{la odisix} is indeed the perfect thing, IMO, and {me la odisix}
for versions of it. But this is no good in the present discussion,
because it fails to generalize to other generics. For example,
knowing that the generic Odyssey is {la odisix} does not tell us
how to refer to the generic lion. Hence it is important that Lojbab
find a way to refer to the generic Odyssey using "cuktrodisi".