{cu da} is ungrammatical. Is this what you mean?:
la'o gy. holon .gy. to li'o toi cu se pagbu gi'ecabo pagbu
By {da} I wanted to mean "that which is ...".
Actually I haven't got yet the grammar of {da}. I saw some people using a cmavo in the place of selbri without a real selbri following it. So I tried the same manner. But effectively ungrammatical. Sorry for that.
The explanation of the etymology is verbose. How about this?:
zoi xy. holos .xy. xelso valsi zo mulno
Yeah, far better.
By the way, did you use {xy} because the language of it's content is {xelso}? And, in another case, {gy} for {glico}? If so, I didn't know that! Cool!
{le go'i cu pu se finti} should be {le valsi pu se finti}.
{le go'i} wouldn't refer back to {la'o gy holon gy}?
{fo la'o gy...} isn't right. It says that he used that book as raw material
for the invention of the word "holon".
True. That part was a makeshift.
Do you think replacing {fo} with {pe} would fix it?
The date and page citation makes no sense. You are doing some vague operation
on the numbers 1967 and 48, then saying that a number of pages equal to the
result of the operation is a date. Try something like {1967moi nanca ju'e
48moi paprysfe}.
So, mine was an apparent malglico.
It would've been useful if there were something like {fi'e} for "created/born in/on (year/date)".