Form: xoi or some other unassigned monosyllable.
Purely an abbreviation for lo'e du'u or perhaps tu'o su'u.
The rationale is that the longwindedness of things like jitfa fa lo'e du'u -- which is equivalent to na -- is a big disincentive to say things by means of selbri+sumti and instead fuels a demand for extra (experimental) cmavo, which then unnecessarily complicates the grammar.
- There is the question as to why anyone would ever say that instead of "na" or "naku" though. --mi'e .djorden.
- I'm not sure if you understood my point. Nobody would bother saying jitfa fa lo'e du'u when they can just na, but for other possible selbri there is no cmavo that substitutes for broda fa lo'e du'u. If broda fa lo'e du'u weren't such a mouthful, and such a tediously repetitive one at that, people might be happier to try to solve how-to-say-it problems by using selbri+sumti instead of always wanting cmavo to do the job. --And Rosta
One downside to this proposal is that it violates the baseline, in that (I think) it would require additions to the preparser. One way around it would be to assign xoi2 to LU, but the downside to that is that LIhU is unelidable (isn't it?), so not such a saving of syllables.
- li'u is elidable but only at the end of the text. So that probably wouldn't work. I think either a new selma'o or a preprocessing step is needed for this to work. --mi'e .djorden.
- mi tugni mi'e And Rosta