Re: Re: lo and intension (was: essentials of a gadri system)

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > > > Prototype-theorists, i.e. some cognitive psychologists, would want
to talk
> > > > about (b), but it needn't be built into the fabric of the language.
> > >
> > > Need not be but is.
> >
> > Is how? In lo'e? But you and I are in agreement that CLL-lo'e is more
> > general than Prototype.
>
> Exactly. It's le'e that is prototype, or perhaps more precisely
my-prototype.

I don't see why le'e should be any different from lo'e. In a context where
lo'i jbopre cu du le'i prenu, it will be the case that lo'e jbopre cu du
le'e
prenu.

--And.