> Similarly, the existence of many lujvo not defined in the dictionaryI think it would be better to first write the definition of a new word
> suggests a need on dictionary work, not a problem with the text,
> which, putting the word to real usage, is already a precious
> contribution. It is exciting that we have the opportunity to
> collaborate with the author and document the definitions for the new
> words, resolving its details.
and then to use it. If you don’t want a definition, you can fall back
to tanru or “za'e”. If you do it the other way round, like you suggest
now, there is a risk of creating multiple definitions for the same
lujvo, which would go against the purpose of lujvo.
That’s just my position in brief. I have written it in detail to a
response to gleki.
I take it back to call it a “mistake” outright but call it “bad
practice” instead.