Larry Sulky wrote: > 2009/12/7 Kjell Rehnstršöm <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > > I think I'll have to admit that it is most practical to use the > x-transcription in order to get as good as 100% transferable > Esperanto. But my very subjective gut reaction is that it is plain > ugly. To be honest the daft hats were what made Esperanto really > nice to look at. > > But Esperantists are a stubborn lot and have eventually overcome the > difficulties with the daft hats. > > I admit that in computers it may be necessary to use the x-spelling, > but in print it is off-putting as far as I am concerned. I agree. When it comes to typing, digraphs are easier, but for reading I prefer diacritics. Ideally though, I'd prefer not to have to deal with either, at least not in an auxlang. > I've often thought that a y-system rather than an x-system might have > looked nicer. Also, I can imagine a romancesque rule that <cy> be > pronounced /tS/, <sy> /S/, and some of the others. > > gyis revido! ISTR doing something like that early in my conlanging days but with <j> not <y> so that it looked more Scandinavian. <sy> (<sj> in the old Dutch-influenced spelling) is used in Indonesian, but it's only for loanwords. <j> was formerly <dj>. Indonesian has one of the best orthographies. It does have a few digraphs but they are used for loanwords, except for <ng> (=/N/) so that /Ng/ would have to be written <ngg>.