On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Ken Caviness wrote (excerpted):

> I did.  Now read again the possible solutions I listed (excerpted from a
> previous message for your convenience):

> (2) overloading letter combinations to form digraphs with sound values
> unrelated to the sounds of the individual letters (also common in
> certain ethnic languages)

    But digraphs are not always "unrelated to the sounds of the
individual letters."  Consider Ido, which I am sure you are familiar
with.  It uses only two digraphs, 'ch' for /tS/ and 'sh' for /S/.  Is
this really such a big deal?  Considering that as Latin mutated into
various dialects, 'c' as /k/ sometimes mutated phonologically into 'c'
as /ts/, which is its orthographic usage in both Esperanto and Ido and
is historically justifiable.  And it does not seem a stretch to me to
believe that 'ch' as /tsh/ could mutate into /tS/ and 'sh' as /sh/ into

    So I think that in this case, the Ido digraphs are not so
farfetched.  Using a whole two -- count' em, the fantastically large
number of two -- digraphs to be learned by themselves is far, far, far
less a burden than dealing with accented letters peculiar to one
auxiliary language by itself.  In such an instance, I think that by a
pragmatic judgment the digraphs are much more practical than the
supersigned letters.  Why place an unnecessary obstacle in the way of
users of a language which is supposed to *facilitate* communication,
not impede it by its written form?

    Still, I am not naive enough to suppose that this debate is going
to come to a conclusion any time soon.

Paul                             mailto:[log in to unmask]
Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
Keyserver (0xF383C8F9) or WWW for PGP public key
Home Page: