> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bartlett > > LFN does offer <k> as an option but I too wish it would > have been the > > standard. The main objection to <c> has nothing to do with > tinkering > > so much as the fact that it has too many different uses across > > different languages. > > I think it is all a matter of standards within one language. > I may be completely mistaken and will freely accept > correction, but somewhere along the line I somehow got the > idea that in Old Norse, <sk> was pronounced /S/ and not /sk/ > (<fisk> = /fIS/ or /fiS/), which would put the lie to the > notion of an invariant prnounciation of <k>. I may be wrong. > Kjell, can you enlighten us? I myself do not have any > objection to <c> being pronounded as /k/, as long as it is > uniform and consistent. It's a minor issue anyway. I just think <k> makes a much better choice. It's used fairly consistently across languages, the biggest exceptions being the Scandinavian languages where it softens to /c/ before front vowels. Anglo-Saxon used <sc> where we now use <sh>. It appears that /sk/ shifted to /S/ over time.