Print

Print


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>.