When you build a word in Esperanto, how broad are the possible meanings? Is it restricted to the commonly accepted meaning, or could it mean anything that falls into that category?

This is perhaps a hard question to phrase in the abstract, so let me give an example: Say you have 'tranĉi', and from it you make 'tranĉilo'. Now, the definition of this word in translation dictionaries is 'knife', but from the sum of its parts it would just be something you use to cut with. A sharp rock, therefore, might be a 'tranĉilo' in the latter sense. My question is how broad is the meaning of a word like this in Esperanto? Do common constructions like 'tranĉilo' get locked into a specific meaning and to use them beyond this sense would be wrong (or at least, confusing)? Or is the semantic space of built words in Esperanto simply just larger than their English equivalents, and the specific meaning in an instance can only be clear through context?

xdzt:Do common constructions like 'tranĉilo' get locked into a specific meaning and to use them beyond this sense would be wrong (or at least, confusing)?

Essentially yes. Words like tranĉilo, lernejo, glaciaĵo are lexicalized and have no bigger extension than their English (or German or...) equivalents.
Their transparent internal structure is just a means of easier memorizing and recognizing them, but they still have to be learnt as lexical units.

Kirilo81:

xdzt:Do common constructions like 'tranĉilo' get locked into a specific meaning and to use them beyond this sense would be wrong (or at least, confusing)?

Essentially yes. Words like tranĉilo, lernejo, glaciaĵo are lexicalized and have no bigger extension than their English (or German or...) equivalents.
Their transparent internal structure is just a means of easier memorizing and recognizing them, but they still have to be learnt as lexical units.

Fascinating! Thanks for the response. Surely this results in Esperanto becoming increasingly difficult to learn as time goes on. Of course, it also means an increase in succinct precision of language with time.

Do common constructions like 'tranĉilo' get locked into a specific meaning and to use them beyond this sense (the customary sense) would be wrong (or at least, confusing)?

Short answer - yes.

But there is always the potential to have what they denote shift as the world or context changes.

If it is crystal clear from context that the customarily restricted application does not apply, then I fancy that the reference can readily become wider.

In any case, many compounds are not that specifically tied down as to what they refer to. Draw me a picture of a lernilo. Is a mezurilo a meter, a tape measure, a counter, or a ruler?

As an expression (compound or not) is qualified so its reference can shift. An angla matenmanĝo is not the same as a franca matenmanĝo. A ŝtonepoka tranĉilo is not a piece of stainless steel cutlery or a street thug's weapon.

If the thrust of your argument is that the lexicalisation of compounds makes the ease of learning Esperanto's vocabulary more apparent than real, then I think the response is perhaps, but not by that much.

Edit: there was a long discussion in this thread which relates to this topic. See the discussion on what can count as an 'arbaro'.

sudanglo:Edit: there was a long discussion in this thread which relates to this topic. See the discussion on what can count as an 'arbaro'.

Thanks for that link, a very stimulating read. It makes me think that perhaps when I've better come to grips with the language, I'll try writing a short comical dialogue in Esperanto in which one character consistently uses non-standard meanings for fossilized words to the confusion of his companion (and hopefully, the amusement of the reader).