Take for example κνέφας on page 230.
Are people reading ους as "ους" or as "κνέφους"? (So too the ου of σκότος)κνέφας, ους, τό = σκότος, ου, ὁ. ≠ φῶς, φωτός, τό
How are the "=" and "≠" signs being read? ὅ ἐστιν "that is ..." or συνωνυμεῖ τῷ ... "is synonymous with ..." and ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν "which is not ... ", ὅ ἐστιν ἀντίθετον πρὸς τὸ ... "which is in anthithesis", or ὃ ἀντικεῖται τῷ ... "which lies in antithesis to ..." are my guesses.
Are the articles read as they sound, or read interpretively as "ἀρσενικόν, θηλυκόν, οὐδέτερον"
I think that an efficient way to read that entry of Caruso's might be:
I am leaving off most of the grammatical information for the nouns, firstly because I think it is better to learn it with the nouns themselves individually rather than somehow together with the meaning, and secondly to be consistent with Caruso's own lack of conjugational data for verbs, and lastly because I think the eyes can read that information as the mouth and ears are learning the meanings - to achieve simultaneous multichannel input.κνέφας (οὐδέτερον) ὅ ἐστιν σκότος καὶ ἀντικεῖται τῷ φῶς
I think that the small square could be read as παραδείγματος χάριν "e.g.".
"+" is σὺν with the dative. And that would make reading an entry like ἐνιαυτός (page 143) a little taxing.
Which requires the form ἦρι, a knowledge that θέρος is neuter and that χειμών is an -ων stem word.ἐνιαυτός, οῦ, ὁ =ἔτος, ους, τό• ἔαρ + θέρος + ὀπώρα + χειμών ...
The high-point could be read as ὅ ἐστιν "i.e." too, I think.
How are other people dealing with the abbreviations?