Re: xo'e & proposal for new cmavo "_xe'o_"

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

Your xe'o seems to be a shorthand for "broda do'e xo'e .ije broda do'e noda
i.e. stating that the claim is true with the place eleiminated, but that
it is false without the place eliminated because there is no value that
makes it true.  I personally like the unabbreviated form - the odds are
unlikely that the two proposals would get cmavo that are that suugestive
of the relationship between them.

Remember that I am hoping that all xVV cmavo proposals are resolved
sufficiently with regard to usefulness by the timne the dictionary is
finished that we can assign real cmavo to the ones that are worthy, and
there is a VERY limited unassigned cmavo space these days, unless we
tap into the newly available CVVV space.  I am thus very wary of proposals
that are not meirtorious enough to rate a real cmavo from the start.  To me
they must be things that have a significant potential for use, but which
it cannot be foreseen that this use warrants assignment now.  But since
experimental cmavo are indeed experimental, that use will have to be achieved
in the face of the words not being formally taught, and subject to elimination
when the experimental period 'ends' (whenever that may be).  I do not support
the open-ended use of xVV cmavo for any old idea on the assumption that if
it catches on, the word will keep that xVV assignment.  So experimental cmavo
kinda have to be so speculative that no one will miss them if they disappear,
but have strong enough support that someone will actually try to use them
before they disappear.

lojbab