Re: Robin's gadri Proposal
A few questions/comments about the proposal. First of all, you define things in terms of a completely generic "LX" gadri. Is it your intention that such a thing be created, or would we use the existing gadri (with various tags to override defaults) to get whatever meaning we want?
Similarly, is it possible to leave an axis unspecified, to be glorked from context, or are they all always specified. That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it possible for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that, instead of explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking about mythology, do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I just say lo pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they actually exist).
I do approve of the change to da'i and je'u for nonexistance and veradicality, but make sure you update the definitions at the top of the page to match.
And finally, I think .o'avu'enai (as close to hubris as I can get) that you've got the issue of veradicality slightly wrong with respect to le. I think the je'u an je'unai you have defined are very useful, but the real definition of le would be more je'ucu'i: Contained identifier is neither asserted nor denied; rather, the containing bridi is considered agnostic to the truth or falsehood of the description. Perhaps that could be better said, but the point is that usually le is used with a description that is true, but is incidentally true, where the primary purpose is to identify the object in question, not to point out that the description may be inaccurate. I do see a use for a je'unai that's defined the way you use it, as a way of saying "I know this is wrong, but work with me here." It's just that, as I've always read it, that's not what le says. If I'm wrong here I'd appreciate if someone would correct me.