Issue B:
As I understand lujvo, any lujvo may be defined *W/O* tanru, using be
and poi/voi (or je) [assuming that <lo broda je brode> is the same as
<lo broda poi brode>, and <le broda je brode> is the same as <le broda
voi brode>.
Examples:
brabloti = bloti poi barda = bloti je barda
bifmlo = molki be lo nu brife
and the lujvo-making standard is the one stating how such a
construction is turned into a lujvo, and the other way around. If this
is correct, then this brings me to two sub-points:
Issue B.1:
<cakcinki>, therefore is *not* a beetle, but any shelled insect. The
reason, I read, that a beetle is called a <cakcinki>, is because
<calku> is a 'dominant' part of the definition of a beetle. I think
there should be a difference between more 'metaphoric', 'implicit'
definitions like <cakcinki> for beetle, and just <cakcinki> for shelled
insect. If this is not true, then there is no true way to understand
lujvo from there definition, only get a clue.
I would suggest some other construction, either an extra rafsi, or
something of fu'ivla-type to specify such a word, since (as I see it)
is not really a lujvo.
Issue B.2:
Why does the dictionary have an English gloss (which as I see it is
meaningless many times [for example brabloti = ship (?!)]), but not
the 'long' version of the lujvo, using poi and be? This would be
a 'real' definition, which can include the entire place structure.
Issue C:
Since tanru are (very) semantically ambiguous, how can we allow
ourselves to define language concepts using tanru (e.g. <sumti tcita>,
<se steci srana>, etc? Those would mean extremely 'wide' concepts!
Issue D:
Why the hell does <brivla> mean what it means? How do the two terms
connect, and why would it mean only one word? What's the real
difference between a brivla and a selbri, then? I mean, <nu prenu kei>
is lo valsi, isn't it?
Maybe I had more?
Well, I can always send some more e-mail. =)