I seem to have only a rough understanding of the first two noble truths.
dukkha and dosa
Apparently 'dukkha' and 'aversion (dosa)' are not the same thing. So, why or how not: in what way are they different/distinct?
second noble truth
Also, does naming aversion as one of the 'three poisons' imply that aversion is on a par with (i.e., is equal and opposite to) desire? If it's true that aversion is of the same rank as desire then why isn't aversion mentioned in the Second Noble Truth?
taṇhā and lobha
Similarly (in case it's a similar answer) what's the difference between taṇhā (which is the subject of the second noble truth) and lobha (which is one of the three poisons)?
attachment and desire
In English I'd guess that 'attachment' and 'desire' might have two different meanings: especially, attachment is semi-permanent, may last a longer time.
If you're hungry, eat, and then are not hungry, maybe that was a transient desire but not attachment. Conversely, a story like Muddy Road (it's the story which ends, '"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"') seems to be warning against attachment (i.e. keeping the same thought stuck in your mind for a long time even after the physical reality has changed) rather than desire. Other stories too seem to warn that it's no so much 'desire' that causes suffering, but rather some kind of inflexibility.
Does Buddhism distinguish between attachment and desire? If lobha is translated as attachment and as desire, then which is taṇhā?