zipcpi: Yet another gadri article

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

le

Definite article. le broda = the broda(s) that I have in mind.

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 go'i uinai "No. *sadness*"

lo'e

Indefinite / archetypical article. lo'e broda = brodas in general, as a concept.

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 article. 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 citka lo plise = "I eat an apple".

lo'i

Essentialistic article. lo'i broda = the set of those defined as broda. The truth value of the sentence would depend of the definition of broda, regardless of the actual status of things that broda

xu lo'i remna cu danlu = "Are humans animals? / Is it part of the definition of "human" that they are animals?" (true, as Lojban danlu does not imply non-personhood like English "animal" might.)
xu ro remna cu mroka'e = "Are all humans mortal?" (true; compare with the next sentence)
xu lo'i remna cu mroka'e = "Is it part of the definition of humans that they are mortal?" (false. Even though all humans are mortal, mortality is not part of the definition of remna; if someone hypothetically found a way to become immortal, they don't necessarily stop being remna.)