Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0q6nEm-00005JC; Fri, 27 May 94 00:45 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0q6nEm-00005JC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 3611; Fri, 27 May 94 00:45:15 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3608; Fri, 27 May 1994 00:45:15 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0394; Thu, 26 May 1994 23:43:31 +0200
Date:         Wed, 25 May 1994 18:26:57 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cmavo conflict:  "vu'o"
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 360
Lines: 10

> Since the second "vu'o" involves a grammar change as well as a cmavo-list
> change, it makes most sense to change the first.  A logical candidate is
> "bu'o", which is free and is very similar in form.

I remembered only the first {vu'o}, but I don't really care if it gets
renamed.

Does {re'u} stand any chance of being accepted as the ordinal ROI?

Jorge