> i lo bicrbombu cu se bevri mi o'adai lo mamta be mi vau
> SEP ART bumblebee? SEP PASS.INV-carried-by-me (pride-EMPATH) [-to] ART mother-OBJ-me TERMIN
I am no expert at glossing (far from it), but I think there are some possible points of confusion here where things are supposed to line up. I think hyphens should generally indicate morpheme breaks within words. Dots seem to be used when several gloss-components hold together in one object-language morpheme. So your gloss ought to be something like:
SEP ART bumblebee SEP PASS.INV
carried.by me (pride-EMPATH) [to] ART mother OBJ me TERMIN
I think only SEP (separator), TERMIN (terminator) and EMPATH (empathic
attitudinal) are not in the standard abbreviations list, and the rest
should be pretty obvious. I also used the bracketed [-to] which is
actually part of the gloss of bevri, as symbolized by the hyphen, put in
a more readable position (5+ place brivla would be even harder to
express without such readability aids).
I like my idea of e.g. VPZ .... VPT because abbreviations like VP are already widely understood among English-speaking linguists and the -Z...-T convention (or something like it) can be used to convey the not-widely-understood functions of these Lojban particles, which IMHO ought to be one of the points of writing the gloss in the first place.
I don't sense that morphemic glossing necessarily is as comprehensive in
the structure words as Mike S's attempt provides. After all, English
has several kinds of articles and they all probably gloss as ART. There
is an abbreviation for "definite" (DEF), but none for "indefinite", two
of the kinds of articles in English. But probably if we wanted to
systematize glossing in Lojban we might invent abbreviations to
distinguish lo, la, lei, and loi (there is no abbreviation for
mass-nouns either in the standard list)