WikiDiscuss

Let's see what we have and what we need in terms of
vocabulary.

I will use ti, ta, tu for objects, lo broda, lo brode,
lo brodi for species, lo'i ro broda is the "extensional aspect"
of lo broda, lo ka ce'u broda is the "intensional aspect" of
lo broda.

{ti cmima lo'i ro broda} says that object ti is a member of
lo'i ro broda; i.e. ti is a specimen of lo broda.

{ti ckaji lo ka ce'u broda} says that object ti bears the
property lo ka ce'u broda; i.e. ti is a locus/focus of lo broda.

Both can be said as {ti broda}, but here we lost the info on
whether the relationship between object ti and species lo broda
is mediated by the extensional or the intensional aspect of lo
broda. In general, it could be either.

{lo broda cu cmima lo'i ro broda}, brodas are members of the set
of all brodas.
{lo broda cu ckaji lo ka ce'u broda}, brodas are bearers of the
property of brodaing.

We don't have gismu for "object x1 is a specimen of species x2"
or for "object x1 is a focus/locus of species x2". I will use
mupli for the latter (even though that is not how it is defined
in the gismu list) and, given that every specimen is also a
focus/locus, I will use {cmimupli} for specimen. (The gismu list
would allow a simple cmima for this too, since x2 of cmima is
not restricted to sets.)

We also don't have a gismu to relate the extensional aspect to the
intensional aspect of a species. Such a brivla would be useful,
either "x1 is the set defined by property x2" or "x1 is the
property defining set x2". I propose {kaiselcmi} for the first
(based on x1 selcmi be lo ckaji be x2) and {cmiselkai} for the
other (based on x1 selkai be lo cmima be x2}.

For "x1 mingles with x2" I propose {cmimupkansa}, based on
x1 kansa x2 lo ka su'o da cmimupli ce'u, or simply {cmikansa},
and for "x1 overlaps x2" I propose {mupkansa}, based on x1
kansa x2 lo ka su'o da mupli ce'u.

I would use {klesi} for "x1 is pervaded by x2", even though
that is not its definition in the gismu list, and {cmikle}
for "x1 is included in x2".

(I leave intersection out for the moment because I'm not
quite sure I understand it, but we might use kruca or
something based on kruca for it.)

To summarize, I propose we use:

cmima (or cmimupli): x1 is specimen of species x2
mupli: x1 is locus/focus of species x2
cmikansa: x1 mingles with x2
mupkansa: x1 overlaps x2
cmikle: x1 is included in x2
klesi: x1 is pervaded by x2

Now, if I understand correctly, you propose that
{lo broda cu brode} should be read as {lo broda cu kruca cmikansa
lo brode} or as {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode} depending on
the meaning of brode (and of broda?). Why not say that it is
always the more general {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode}? This
is a more vague claim, but vagueness can always be reduced by
either context or adding more explicit information. Removing
precision is harder to do if we give the basic form too precise
a meaning. The advantage of doing this is that you don't need
to sort brodes into cmikansa expanding ans mupkansa expanding
classes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail