Is means limited, and viceversa, as pointed before.
In describing something which is, the natural tendency is to simplify the expression of this experience, that is, to reduce it to a particular case of a rule, a law of "nature". This is a choice, and, by commiting to it, we push some of the rest of the world outside our descriptive reach.
That is, once a set of laws has been chosen to describe things that are, we are left with a rest of existent things which can be only enumerated, only pointed out, things which are out of the picture covered by our choice of laws. Enumerated, not necessarily counted, that is, all we can do is name them. This naming choice, is, at best, a choice of a law placeholder but without any warranties until a society of observers settle to fill it out.
These enumerable things can only be met, stumbled upon, say, touched, and sometimes these events force us to review our previous picture choice, our previous set of "natural" laws. By modifying our choice, we include the newly met things in our reductionist picture, but we're bound to add some of the old "explained/covered by law" things, to the new only enumerable set.
The laws we choose to use at any time, we call them "natural", and they are opportunistic choices, according to our wishes, incomplete, as the part of all they are describing: wave/particle, or gravitation/probability.
Our reductionist part of knowledge, whatever our choice is now or may be whenever, is incomplete relative to the incompleteness of is itself.
Briefly: is is already different from all, less, and a law simplifying the less is even lesser, because the law is ours.
To put it differently: all(nothing) > set of primary signs (is, etc.) > set of laws(relational attributes, grammars).