I think it is more that the common words in the language are the scaffolding (like hedging with "I think...", "like" for setting up an example) and the subject of the scaffold is normally unique and highly context specific.
Looking at the first Frieren example:
"Live without [fear]", "Live without [bread]", "Live without [sunlight]", "Live without [honour]". The common words are more than enough to set up a generic sentence for lack of something but then what someone lacks can be literally any object, concept or verb. There are a lot more than 500 of those in the world.
One nuance not mentioned in the blog is that this particular "without" is expressed with the archaic negative verb conjugation -zu (ず). It lives on in set phrases and literary use, but it's not usable without a verb to negate (you can't say "pan-zu ikiru" for "live without bread") and it's going to sound pretty weird if you try to use it for quotidian things like "live without eating bread" (pan tabezu ikiru).