> [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.