- lo'ei, le'ei
- [[And]:] These are xorxes's creation, and I don't accept or understand his definitions of them. But they are useful for things like "I need a box (any box)", mi nitcu lo'ei tanxe, and "I need a box (any box) of a certain kind", mi nitcu le'ei tanxe. These cannot be expressed using nitcu and any other gadri. So my current view is that these two gadri are worthwhile, but not yet satisfactorily defined.
- loi'e, lei'e — as discussed on Jboske; more info later. There's an emerging consensus (among all jboskepre bar pc) that they = lo'e/le'e respectively, but the experimental shapes are there to avoid taking that consensus for granted.
- loi'e broda cu brode — "in every world in which lo'i broda is a singleton set but that is like This World in every other respect, lu'a lo'i broda cu brode"
- lei'e broda cu brode — "in every world in which le'i broda is a singleton set but that is like This World in every other respect, lu'a le'i broda cu brode"
- Uses for these include (i) reference to singleton categories, (ii) generic reference ("This depicts a snake", "I like chocolate").
- So "I like (eating) chocolate" would be what? "mi nelci (lo li'i citka/tu'a) lei'e cakla"? Or "loi'e"? Or what? mi'e filip
- mi nelci loi'e cakla, ti pixra loi'e since.
lau'i broda = lo klesi be lo'i broda
(ro) lau'a broda = ro lu'a lo klesi be lo'i broda
(pi ro) lau'o broda = (pi ro) lu'o (ro lu'a) lo klesi be lo'i broda
lau'i participates in the following paradigm:
- lo'i = intensionally-defined set, defined by sumti tail
- le'i ro = +specific intensionally-defined set — le'i ro broda = "a certain kind of broda"
- le'i (su'o) = +specific set (unspecified whether intensionally or extensionally defined) — le'i (su'o) broda = "a certain set of broda" or "a certain kind of broda that actually has instances"
- lau'i ro = nonspecific intensionally-defined set — lau'i ro broda = "Ex x is a kind of broda"
- lau'i (su'o) = nonspecific set (unspecified whether intensionally or extensionally defined) — le'i (su'o) broda = "Ex, x is a set of broda" or "Ex, x is a kind of broda that actually has instances"
This analysis relies on the assumption that as an inner cardinality indicator, ro' differs from su'o in that only su'o'' excludes cardinality 0. If X is a subcategory of Y, but X has (or can have) no instances, then X must be defined intensionally.
lau'a and lau'o are analogous to le and lei:
lau'a : lau'i :: le : le'i
lau'o : lau'i :: lei : le'i
- pa'ei — pa'ei broda = da poi ke'a du le(i)'e broda a lo(i)'e broda a le du ku voi ke'a du lo(i)'e broda
- pa'ei broda refers to a single broda without making any implications about whether or not there are any other broda.
Is this what "e-gadri" means?
"e-gadri" = le/lei/le'e/le'i as opposed to o-gadri lo/loi/lo'e/lo'i. le'ei and 'lei'e are more e-gadri, and lo'ei and loi'e are more o-gadri. OTOH, the lau'V'' series don't fit so neatly into the pattern; they're nonspecific exact counterparts of e-gadri. --And
Anchored here (because I had to anchor it somewhere): gadri report, aug 2003