I mean I agree that context makes up a lot of the meaning, but this still doesn't negate my point.

If you were to start a conversation then the other person needs to know exactly what you mean. They can't know what you mean if it is ambiguous which, as I've pointed out, is clearly the case with any oligosynthetic language that doesn't have set meanings to set words and more possible meanings to one word than one. Vyrmag fits this criteria.

Creating and speaking are different, yes, but from creating I can still understand how the language works and is spoken. I have seen chat logs of vyrmag. I have translated vyrmag chats to understand what you were all talking about. It's quite clear that what you are speaking about is already within mutual knowledge. Both speakers already understand what the other is talking about because they've *learnt it already.

For example there was a post a while back of a chat log between Tigfa and another speaker of vyrmag. They discussed vyrmag (in terms of conlanging). Now, they both obviously understood each other well enough to communicate. Tigfa advertised by saying they were talking about very complex things. Not only did I doubt it was complex (which it wasn't afaicr) but that it was truly synthetic.

As an example (since I cannot find the OP), say two speakers were talking about vyrmag's grammar. The first speaker would open with something along the lines of 'how do we fix vyrmag's ambiguity?'. Now if we were to be synthetic, we would try to come up with the word for ambiguity from vyrmag's root words. Now after searching ones brain (giving this would be a fluent speaker this wouldn't take much time) one would come up with something such as 'da'spyeg'kyop' which literally means 'approximate-language-thing'. The second person now has to work out what the first person means by this. I hope it's not just me but unless this was a widely used word, I wouldn't be able to get it and quickly move on without asking the first person what they meant. So it turns out, after some explaining, that the first person meant 'ambiguity'. Ok got past there, cool. The rest of the conversation should be fairly easy since the main subject is within mutual knowledge. However what about that first sentence? How does one know what the other speaker is talking about with such ambiguous language?

I would like to see some real examples on vyrmag chat though if you can show me.