From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:45:00 2010
Date:         Wed, 24 May 1995 20:44:36 EDT
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Proposal: C-Glide-V
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
X-From-Space-Date: 
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <iUErpPuBEyJ.A.ErE.st0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

And:
> I realize noone wants there to be 68 more cmavo,

Then don't provide them, please!

> but over
> time there may turn out to be a need to give certain cmavo
> shorter forms.

Then some of the monosyllabic cmavo will have to go... :)

> (E.g. monosyllabic alternatives to {du'u},

I think {du'u} should change places with {du}.  That would also help
discourage the use of {du}, which should be used much less than it is
(if it should be used at all outside maths, which I doubt).

> {lo'e},

Let's see...  That one could get {lau}.  Actually no, I had thought that
{lau} should go to {la'e}, so I'll think of another one for {lo'e}.

> {su'ore},

Not needed much.  :)

(Usually we don't mean to refer to individuals when using the
unqualified plural, but I know you disagree, we talked about this
before.)

> which I think are used less than they
> ought to be, possibly partly because of their polysyllabicity.)

I use {du'u} in spite of it, I think I should use {lo'e} more.

Jorge