"you can't really want a thing, you want to have a thing, to eat a thing,
etc."... Isn't that the same for {nelci}? If I like apples, I like to be stimulated by apples' flavour, fracturability etc., or I like the way apples taste and mouth-feel, etc.; I don't simply like 'apples'.
I am of the opinion that every perceived individual thing is ultimately an event. An apple is an event of some things 'appling' (to borrow Alan Watts' _expression_), which includes being capable of stimulating a mouth in certain ways with certain qualities. I happen to think that {lo plise} is an implicit event of {lo nu da plise}, and that {mi nelci lo plise} is essentially {mi nelci lo nu da plise} or more specifically {mi nelci lo nu da plise fi'o citka mi}. In this respect, it does'nt seem to me important to decide on whether the x2 of {nelci} should be a non-NU sumti or a NU sumti. The same for {djica}: {mi djica lo nu mi citka lo plise} or {mi djica lo nu da plise fi'o citka mi} can, in my opinion, implicitly be {mi djica lo plise}, {lo plise} being an implicit extraction, which can of course be made explicit with {tu'a}.