From:
DR. ESPERANTO’S
INTERNATIONAL – ENGLISH
VOCABULARY

Vortar'o por Angl'o'j

Everything written in the international language can be translated by means of this vocabulary. If several words are required to express one idea they must be written in one, but separated by [apostrophes]; e.g., frat'in'o, though one idea, is yet composed of three words, which must be looked for separately in the vocabulary.

Editor’s notes:

(a) Over the past century, some of these words have acquired better or different translations, but I have not attempted to update them. This is the original 900-root Esperanto repertoire. (Nowadays 10 times larger.)

"um
an affix without definite meaning; it may be translated by various words "

So does this make "um" a wildcard affix in Esperanto, that can be used to modify words when no other affix can give the meaning desired?

Yes, but you have to be careful about its use.

Best to study the meanings of some um-words first to get a feel.

Do you feel an immediate understanding for kolumo, plandumo, pendumi, krucumi, amindumi, kafumi, cerbumi, akvumi, plenumi, foliumi?

N-true:If sangumi wasn't lexicalized as 'to bleed' already but a spontaneous compound/derivated verb, I think most people would understand something like "to bleed around" or "to spill blood all over the place" or "to mess around with blood".

I'm not sure if I agree with that. People bleed far more often than they spill blood all over the place, play with blood, or mess around with blood.

In my opinion -um- is a way of expressing a common thing to happen with the root word. I normally tell beginners to translate -um- words with a fill in the blank method; "[root]-umi" = "to do the 'root' thing"; "[root]-umo" = "a 'root' thing".

Therefore pico = pizza; picumi = "to do the pizza thing" What thing do we normally do with pizza? Go out for pizza with friends, or bring some pizzas in and eat them as a group. So "picumi" doesn't mean spreading pizza all over the room, or throwing it around, or eating it messily. It means doing what one normally does with pizza, namely, eating it in a group.

glaciaĵo = ice cream. glaciaĵumi, what would that mean? What is a common thing that one does with ice cream? Surely not drop it all over the ground and smear it around. To me, "glaciaĵumi" means to go out to an ice cream parlour.

kafejumi = to hang out in a cafe, drinking coffee. [what one normally does in a cafe]

"Akvumi" isn't a word with a relatively fixed meaning like "sangumi", but if someone told me that something "akvumas", I would assume that it was somehow leaking or dribbling water, although Esperanto does have a word "liki" (to leak). This is a thing that water commonly does, it drips out of things, it leaks. But context also matters. If we're at the beach and someone asks another if they want to "akvumi", I'd assume it would have something to do with going into the water and playing around -- what one normally does at a beach, having to do with water.

N-true: Words like sangumi 'to bleed'

I don't remember coming across that one before. How about simply saying 'sang[ad]i'? This is the form that can be found in ReVo and NPIV2002.

For me Erinaj the word 'akvumi' does have a relatively fixed meaning - to water or to wet

NPIV defines it as a transitive verb - malsekigi surŝprucigante au trafluigante.

sudanglo:For me Erinaj the word 'akvumi' does have a relatively fixed meaning - to water or to wet

NPIV defines it as a transitive verb - malsekigi surŝprucigante au trafluigante.

At any rate, it still bears out my conclusion - namely, that we use -um- as a way to describe the most common things done with the root. Watering things and wetting things is very common (hence how English uses simply "to water" to describe watering plants, etc)

The NPIV[1] isn't authoritative. Big, yes. Thorough, yes. Authoritative, no.

I learned -um as erinja's "do the [root] thing" interpretation; the meaning is purely context-dependent. Whatever is commonly (or obviously) done with the root is what is meant.

The meaning of many, if not most, -um words (I think) would be difficult to adequately capture in static dictionary entries. Dictionary entries lack context, and -um is all about context.

If we, as Esperanto speakers, have imbued certain -um words with static, rigid, context-independent meanings, then we need to stop that right now. If the NPIV defines akvumi to mean one particular thing, regardless of the context, then their entry is incomplete. They aren't "wrong" - certainly akvumi can mean what they define it as meaning - but they are leaving out everything else it could legitimately mean, properly derived from the rules of Esperanto; other things which it can and does additionally mean, when used in situations where those meanings make sense.

Since Esperanto is an international language, I can see this context dependency producing some culturally influenced issues. What is "commonly done" with something (the root) in one culture may be entirely different than what is commonly done with that same root in a different culture. Depending on the background of the speaker, the same word could mean entirely different things if someone elsewhere says it[2].

In conversations between people from similar backgrounds there would be no problem. But it might be wise to be conscious of potential misinterpretations of -um words between people from radically different locations, or in written form (as you have no idea who might be reading what you've written).

----------
[1] Full disclosure: I do not own a copy of the NPIV, and have only glanced at one a couple of times.

[2] Although, as pointed out, the same word will have different meanings depending on the context in which it is embedded, so the meaning of the same word may vary from situation to situation, no matter who is talking and/or listening. -Um words are nothing if not flexible, so making sure contexts are clear seems wise when deciding to use them.

RiotNrrd:
In conversations between people from similar backgrounds there would be no problem. But it might be wise to be conscious of potential misinterpretations of -um words between people from radically different locations, or in written form (as you have no idea who might be reading what you've written).

I full agree. Even more there could everytime be some probability that one word (concept) holds different meanings. Most modern dictionaries rank that commoness. But that simply shows, that especially written dictionaries only can be recommendations. That recommendations of commoness seems to include mainstream commoness only. Nowadays someones can access to lots of knowledge sources via Internet. So it could be difficult to determine tilting point when innovation gets mainstream. Until now, spoken information inside videos, movies, podcasts only can be raw indexed via speech recognition. But also video portals like i.e. Google's Youtube has to be included inside commoness of word compounds, which develops based on culture mix-up.

In my opinion someones should develop some kind of empathy means some kind of permanent awareness or feedback loop of what results own communicated words phrases are triggering at audience. That would give some more mental flexibility. Of course that grade of awareness depends on several factors i.e. at Maslow's hierarchy of needs etc. I.e. there excists gestic if somebody feels confused. I don't know detail word of that gestic. Its like an backwards head nodding which starts out of the thorax if people feel confused. Its similar gestic like if somesones shrinks back. I.e. if some poison snake is crossing unexpected. Of course non-written and written empathy are different.

RiotNrrd:The NPIV[1] isn't authoritative. Big, yes. Thorough, yes. Authoritative, no.

There might well be a good reason why NPIV2002 doesn't contain 'sangumi', namely that it apparently has the same meaning as 'sang[ad]i'. It seems pointless adding '-um-' if it has no function.

RiotNrrd:If the NPIV defines akvumi to mean one particular thing, regardless of the context, then their entry is incomplete. They aren't "wrong" - certainly akvumi can mean what they define it as meaning - but they are leaving out everything else it could legitimately mean, properly derived from the rules of Esperanto; other things which it can and does additionally mean, when used in situations where those meanings make sense.

Would you say the same about "vortaro"? By that logic PIV should include other definitions describing it as a book, or essay, or magazine (etc etc), all of which are in some sense collections of words.

Esperanto has always had many words with an arbitrary quality to their most common meaning, regardless of the schematic possibilities. If we're going to take exception to akvumi then where to draw the line? Should we insist the definition of malsanulejo is incomplete and should include doctor's office, or clinic, or sanatorium, or any other place purposed for the sick?