Print

Print


> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Chandler

> Seeing that "yet another" system of Esp spelling got me 
> thinking: why is it not possible for the Espists to agree on 
> a single system of spelling, where the hats are not available?
>
> Zamenhof proposed the h-convention (h following the behatted 
> letter), but many Espists seem to prefer other methods, such 
> as the following-x-convention.  It's always seemed to me that 
> at least with the h-convention, the digraphs ch and sh come 
> out right.  The downside is clearly gh, which happens to go 
> against the Italian usage, very confusingly for Italians.  
> Despite this, I've always thought that if I was an Espist, I 
> would prefer the h-convention.
> 
> The x-convention has always appeared to me rather ugly and 
> like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.  You still get 
> digraphs, but they're completely unnatural cx, sx etc.  It 
> just appears to me that what this says to the reader is: "I 
> wanted to use hats here, but couldn't, so just hold your nose 
> and pretend they're hats, perched neatly atop the preceding 
> letters".  Rather than work out a proper workaround for the 
> problem that the hats are not universally available.
> 
> Thoughts?

I prefer the X-system, except maybe using <w> instead of <ux>.  X
isn't used in the E-o alphabet so it's a logical choice.  I don't
think it's ugly or unnatural at all, just different so it may take a
little while to adjust but that's something that always goes with
learning a new language anyway.  The H-system can be confusing to a
beginner who may not be able to figure out the spelling is <s>+<h>
/sh/ or <ch> /S/.   I've seen lots of other schemes like the
Z-system (apparently from Polish influence) the '-system, the
^-system and so on.