Thank you very much for your quick and exhaustive response. It is a pleasure for me to have someone to share ideas with.

So, I wrote a resume of my ideas and I decided to adopt the perspective that considers semantic primes as nuclear semantic concepts maybe coded in all languages, without going into their role as absolute ingredients for the construction of all possible meanings in language.
I  compared Wierzbicka's lexical semantic theory to talmian event conceptualization briefly explaining that: Wierzbicka considers the semantic primes as pre-existing concepts, conceived as having a full meaning in isolation (despite their possible patterns of combinations) rather than acquiring it as part of a structured scheme; Talmy, instead, considers the semantic elements in the event schemas as just the most relevant semantic components that we can find in the expression of  motion events crosslinguistically, not assuming that they are some of the semantic nuclear basis of all meanings.

Does it make sense?

As far as the specific component of Manner is concerned, I would ask: Talmy inserts the component Manner in his event schemas and doesn't talk about its composition; Wierzbicka talks about Manner indirectly, suggesting that it is a meaning resulting from the combination of the semantic primes LIKE THIS according to the context (Goddard&Wierzbicka 2002:313). How do you consider the semantic component Manner used by Talmy (but also by Jackendoff, i.e.: climb = Event [Manner CLAMBERING])? It seems to me an irreducible and universal semantic component like the semantic primes. What do you think?

Wierzbicka's work is about lexical meaning, properties of words. Talmy's work is about function (event or conceptual structural meaning), properties of grammatical structure. There is likely to be some overlap between the two once both theories are polished, and I imagine either would accept that overlap as relevant if they accepted the details of the other theory in general but they're talking about different things. For example, words identified by Wierzbicka's categories might fit into the grammatical slots identified by Talmy, but one problem is (in)directness, because Wierzbicka's categories are so abstract that those primitives might fight into almost any part of speech in various functions, so it isn't clearly how exactly to connect the theories except to notice some conceptually similar points.

Furthermore, Talmy's work can be interpreted loosely as a description of cross-linguistic variation, rather than necessarily a theory about the inner-workings of languages. Wierzbicka's work is essentially irrelevant if it doesn't have theoretical validity-- it's analytical/predictive, not loosely descriptive.

Making a connection between these two approaches is a very interesting possibility, although your results would then be contingent on both approaches being accepted. Generally Talmy's work seems widely accepted (with a few exceptions that work out as additional details, like "equi-polent" languages where Serial Verb Constructions behave in the middle of his verb-framed and satellite-framed types), but I think partly because it is a descriptive tool rather than necessarily a theoretical analysis, in which case it might not be as strictly accepted if required to be a theoretical explanation rather than just labels. Weirzbicka's work is highly controversial (to the extent that I'd say the vast majority of linguists may reject it), although it can be interpreted less controversially if we loosen the goal from lexical decomposition of all vocabulary (a way it is often interpreted, and seems to be sometimes suggested by Wierzbicka et al. themselves), versus just an enterprise in finding common meanings cross-linguistically and thereby partial lexical decomposition for some vocabulary. The semantic primes are either ingredients to build all vocabulary (with a high burden of proof) or just common, shared cross-linguistic elements with vocabulary in all languages (still not uncontroversial, but less extreme). Note that the number of primes has fluctuated over the years such that the second interpretation might be more plausible. Regardless, there is essentially no imaginable way to get from the core primes to "tree" or "squirrel", so I personally find the second interpretation much more likely.

It depends on your theory/analysis!

-ed marks past tense in English, of course. But exactly how you analyze that depends on your textbook/instructor/theory. There are a lot of different possibilities.

No, actually I meant, ask your Finnish friend of she understands anything from the Veps video. That gives you a way of calibrating her non-recognition of the recording in question. If she says "I sort of understand it" to Veps that I would say that the Banter video is unlikely to be in a Finnic language. But if she has the same reaction to Veps, then I'd say her language-recognition skills are tightly tuned to Finnish in particular.

Where did this video come from in the first place? I would also entertain the theory that it's mock language. I've heard some hilarious mock Norwegian videos that were not actually in Norwegian, but it took speakers a minute to figure out that it wasn't actually Norwegian.

Great, thanks. I'll check with her.