I don't really see that as an issue, though, as it seems likely no language escapes this predicament

Not so, I think, Riot.

Setting aside the point that you could create any number of bizarre and unintelligible combinations in the natural languages, like your 'nucleus-cantaloupe', it is generally true for the natural languages that usage that the speaker is familiar with has already determined the meaning.

Or, if the meaning is not clear to the native speaker, the dictionary provides authoritative guidance.

In this particular case, NPIV gives no guidance and neither Benson or Wells are sufficiently authoritative sources for us not to balk at the vagueness of the proposed term 'butikŝteli'.

If we were to abandon that idea that Esperanto compounds should be strongly suggestive of their meanings, more or less interpretable on first sight, and let usage entirely determine meaning (as happens in the natural languages), we might quickly end up with the sort of opaque soup that so confounds the foreign learner of English who has to decode the meaning of some English phrasal verb.

But we have to recognize, anyway, that there are many areas of life, where there is insufficient usage of Esperanto to adopt any policy (advisable or not) of usage sanctioning specificity of meaning beyond the face value meaning of the particular compound.

Kodegadulo, 'butikum-ŝteli' isn't bad at all. The same form had occurred to me while thinking about the problem.

This would then free up 'butikŝteli' to be used for the activity of the petty thief who preys on corner-stores analogous with 'domŝteli' for the practice of burglary.

And I am very comfortable with Chainy's suggestion of 'marodi' for looting.

But solving this one set of problems still leaves our bilingual dictionaries with an unacceptably high incidence of lame translations.

sudanglo:But solving this one set of problems still leaves our bilingual dictionaries with an unacceptably high incidence of lame translations.

Perhaps we can simply accept the english language bilingual dictionary as authoritative. English is the de facto international language, and it seems that it is even the language of choice to discuss matters of esperanto grammar

I'm not sure that we need an Esperanto equivalent for every English word. The style of Esperanto expression is characteristically simpler. Steli plus context may suffice for most purposes.

super-griek:

Miland:I'm not sure that we need an Esperanto equivalent for every English word. The style of Esperanto expression is characteristically simpler. Steli plus context may suffice for most purposes.

I agree. It seems to be a general problem of bilingual dictionaries of the type English-Esperanto (or French-Eo, Dutch-Eo...) that they try too hard to create a one-word Esperanto equivalent for every word in the national language, even if it isn't actually in use among Esperanto speakers (and in some instances is just impractical or ugly).
'Butikŝteli' seems too be a typical example of this.

+1 to both.

sudanglo:Kodegadulo, 'butikum-ŝteli' isn't bad at all. The same form had occurred to me while thinking about the problem.

Mensegoj sampensas.

In a similar vein, on another thread I mused over why we have "konstelacio" (clearly a gimme to the legacy of Latinate word formation in English and the Romance languages) whereas "stelaro" seemed most apt. The answer seemed to be that "stelaro" was too vague. I suppose "group of stars" might mean anything from a simple binary system to a huge globular cluster or galaxy. Whereas "konstelacio" specifically means "constellation". Since then, I reasoned that perhaps "stelfiguro" or "stelbildo" might do the trick ... and just now found corroboration for both at SimplaVortaro.com. "Stelfiguro" and "stelaro" are both listed as synonyms for "konstelacio". I also see that the German equivalent is "Sternbild", giving traction for "stelbildo" -- except that that might be better suited to mean "astronomical photograph". We might also go with "stelimago", in the sense of an "imagined picture made of stars." Bottom line, we already have a lot to work with in EO without resorting to slavishly transliterating Latin/English terminology.

Kodegadulo:In a similar vein, on another thread I mused over why we have "konstelacio" (clearly a gimme to the legacy of Latinate word formation in English and the Romance languages) whereas "stelaro" seemed most apt. The answer seemed to be that "stelaro" was too vague. I suppose "group of stars" might mean anything from a simple binary system to a huge globular cluster or galaxy. Whereas "konstelacio" specifically means "constellation".

I think it is more correct to say that "stelaro" seems too vague for someone. Really only a few people are enough to apply rule 15, and create yet another synonym.

Kodegadulo:Since then, I reasoned that perhaps "stelfiguro" or "stelbildo" might do the trick ... and just now found corroboration for both at SimplaVortaro.com. "Stelfiguro" and "stelaro" are both listed as synonyms for "konstelacio". I also see that the German equivalent is "Sternbild", giving traction for "stelbildo" -- except that that might be better suited to mean "astronomical photograph".

This is of course exactly the same problem. Such a compound is not by itself absolutely defined. There is little which can be done about it, besides simply defining the meant meaning. Esperanto is probably not used enough on all areas to have a communal consensus on all of these kinds of words. And furthermore even if it was used a bit by astronomers, there will be sooner or later be some other esperantist astronomer, or even non-astronomer dictionary maker, who simply does not like the previous invention ('stelaro' is no good, it should be 'stelbildo'). So, now we even have 3 words for the same thing!

It will probably only be solved if esperanto will be used a lot to talk about constellations. E.g. in dutch the word ended up to be 'sterrenbeeld', which is used pretty universally. Of course 'constellatie' exists too, but I can't really imagine who uses that.

Kodegadulo:We might also go with "stelimago", in the sense of an "imagined picture made of stars." Bottom line, we already have a lot to work with in EO without resorting to slavishly transliterating Latin/English terminology.

I actually think it is a bit pointless. By starting a discussion about it, we probably simple end up with yet other alternatives, like 'stelimago'. I find it a bit irritating that simpla vortaro gives two alternatives. What good is that? Why the hell would one not have sufficed? I'm even starting to think that 'konstelacio' is better, at least there is no discussion possible about that.

Kodegadulo:...on another thread I mused over why we have "konstelacio" (clearly a gimme to the legacy of Latinate word formation in English and the Romance languages) whereas "stelaro" seemed most apt. The answer seemed to be that "stelaro" was too vague. I suppose "group of stars" might mean anything from a simple binary system to a huge globular cluster or galaxy. Whereas "konstelacio" specifically means "constellation". Since then, I reasoned that perhaps "stelfiguro" or "stelbildo" might do the trick ... and just now found corroboration for both at SimplaVortaro.com. "Stelfiguro" and "stelaro" are both listed as synonyms for "konstelacio". I also see that the German equivalent is "Sternbild", giving traction for "stelbildo" -- except that that might be better suited to mean "astronomical photograph". We might also go with "stelimago", in the sense of an "imagined picture made of stars." Bottom line, we already have a lot to work with in EO without resorting to slavishly transliterating Latin/English terminology.

In Polish we use:

stelaro = gwiazdozbiór / konstalacja

gwiazda = stelo
zbiór = aro

But this word (gwiazdozbiór) is historically established and means only some shape formed by stars in the night sky (not any set of stars). I vote for "stelfiguro", which was what automatically came to my mind when thinking of "constellation"

mihxil: I'm even starting to think that 'konstelacio' is better, at least there is no discussion possible about that.

Vikipedia even decided that konstelacio is not the same thing as stelaro, which strikes me as pedantic.

I think it originated in http://www.esperanto.org/AEK/AT/. An attempt to get the terminology for astronomy in esperanto right.

Agreed Miland, we certainly don't need an Esperanto equivalent for every English word and if certain English words are grouped together under a single Esperanto translation that seems quite tolerable, as English is particularly rich in its vocabulary, so that we have different words used in different contexts for essentially the same concept.

So I'm quite happy to see quick, fast, speedy and rapid all translated as 'rapida'.

However, it is a different matter when two different English words represent a distinction which is of practical consequence, and figures in other European languages.

Stelfiguro as a 'skemisma' translation of constellation seems to me inspired and a good example of a compound word that immmediately evokes the intended meaning.

But there is a place in the language for both 'stelaro' and 'konstelacio', the former being somewhat non-specific and the latter nailing a precise meaning. And 'stelfiguro' is available for speakers of languages that don't have a similar form to international word 'konstelacio' in their own language.

Perhaps some translations in English-Esperanto dictionaries would seem less lame, if they were acompanied by notes explaining the larger semantic terrain of the proffered translation.

Just offering 'rabi' for pillage, plunder loot, rob and mug leaves the dictionary browser with a bad feeling.

Incidentally surfing the multi-lingual dictionary resources on the net shows that a lot of languages have a very similar word to English 'plunder', but I couldn't decide whether an Esperanto adaption should be 'plundri' or 'plunderi'.

When eco-enthusiasts complain on man's plundering of the oceans, it might be nice to have an alternative to 'prirabi' to express their view.