, then this is a clear case for adding a new cmavo, in
> which case the CLL usage would justify giving tu'o the zi'o interpretation
> (though I don't think it requires a zi'o interpretation to make sense as a
> null operand, it is consistent with same to do so), but the case has to be
> made that tu'o needs that specific a definition, ESPECIALLY in light of the
> fact that I don't think we have any other cmavo that are simple
> abbreviations for a two-cmavo string (which seems like a waste of cmavo to
> me), so it seem clear that there was no INTENT that tu'o mean something so
> simple.
Didn't you recently note that tu'o can grammatically be used in cases
where mo'ezi'o can't go?