Print

Print


Ph.D. wrote:
> From: "Mark J. Reed"
>>
>> Also, it's not just  <ch>; Zamenhof proposed
>> using <h> for all the circumflexes.  While <ch>
>> for /tS/ and <sh> for /S/ are unobjectionable,
>> it's hard to say the same about <gh> for /dZ/,
>> <hh> for /x/, <jh> for /Z/.  And forget <uh>
>> for /w/, although I think Zamenhof suggested
>> just using <w> for that when ŭ wasn't available.
> 
> 
> Z. recommended <u> for ŭ when ŭ wasn't
> available.

On the rare occasions when I use E-o, I use the X-System but do 
substitute <w> for <ŭ>.  Again, just making it <u> is still 
somewhat ambiguous.

Esperajo, my idea for an E-o reform reduces the phonology and 
offers a new orthography to go with it that doesn't require any 
daft hats.

	http://conlang.dana.nutter.net/index.php/Esperajo