zipcpi: Yet another gadri article

The following describes my personal thoughts on how gadri ("articles") should be used.

le

Deixis determiner. le broda = the broda(s) that are identifiable or knowable. Often used to refer to either something mentioned earlier, or to something in the immediately shared context of the speakers.

For example, if a wife returns home after watching a play, she might have this conversation with her husband:
W: coi "Hello."
H: coi .i xu do nelci le draci "Hi. Did you like the play? (that you just watched)"
W: na'e uinai "No. *sadness*"

lo'e

Generalizing determiner. lo'e broda = brodas in general, without referring to any broda in particular.

H: ue .i xunai do nelci lo'e draci "Eh? Don't you like plays? (plays in general)"
W: je'a "Yes (I do like plays; xunai only makes the question rhetorically negative, and does not change the expected answer)"
H: je'e "OK. (Understood / Roger)"

Note that this differs from xu do nelci ro draci "Do you like all plays?", which is most probably false. Even the biggest fan of plays would probably hate some plays; in fact, they may hate it all the more because of their appreciation of plays in general!

lo

Descriptive determiner. lo broda = something(s) that brodas. Can mean either le or lo'e depending on context. lo is pretty much "never wrong", but le and lo'e can be used when definiteness is important.

mi djica lo nu do penmi lo prenu = "I want you to meet someone." Compare with:

mi djica lo nu do penmi le prenu = "I want you to meet that person (a/some particular person[s])."
mi djica lo nu do penmi lo'e prenu = I want you to meet people (in general; I don't care who you meet)."

lo'i

Essentialistic determiner. lo'i broda = the essentialistic/Platonic model of broda. The truth value of the sentence would depend on the definition of broda; what constitutes "broda-ness", regardless of the actual status of things that broda.

xu lo'i remna cu danlu = "Are humans animals? / Is animality a part of humanity?" (true, as Lojban danlu does not imply non-personhood like English "animal" might.)

xu ro remna cu se tuple lo remei = "Do all humans have two legs?" (False; some have certainly lost their legs, or were not born with them.)
xu lo'i remna cu se tuple lo remei = "Is humanity characterized by having two legs?" (Probably true however; since for most people, their defining model of a "human" will have two legs.)

xu ro remna cu mroka'e = "Are all humans mortal?" (True; compare with the next sentence)
xu lo'i remna cu mroka'e = "Is mortality a part of humanity?" (a very interesting question indeed; you might get very different answers depending if you asked a transhumanist, a priest, or a nihilist!)

Note that this makes xu do nelci lo'i draci "Is (you liking it) a part of (being-a-play-ness)?" a pretty ridiculous question; plays aren't characterized by whether the wife likes it or not!