So e.g. {la'e ko'a} would typically be a particular thing referred to by
ko'a according to some particular relevant notion of reference, rather
than being the collection of all possible referents or the kind
"referents of ko'a", or rather than requiring restricting the domain to
exclude all other possible referents.
I see what you mean, and I agree it's a worthwhile exercise to express
the final logical form in lojban using as few constructs as possible;
but I don't see why this should be done greedily, i.e. first translating
to minimalistic lojban and then finding the logical form.
In isolation, I don't see a difference between
broda .i brode
and
broda .i je brode
There are differences once other constructs get involved, but I don't
see how to use that to differentiate between {ju'e} and {e} as sumti
connectives.
How about:
kukte lo plise .e re lo ci plise noi vi zvati
The idea here is to force some individual apples into the domain, so if
{lo} is really \iota then {lo plise} can't refer to the kind.