5 ms·
Imho if you design a new language it should use a simple and widely compatible script. Maybe computers did not yet exist back then, but they had typewriters, te
by Aardwolf 7y ago
Imho if you design a new language it should use a simple and widely compatible script. Maybe computers did not yet exist back then, but they had typewriters, telegraph and baudot codes so it should have been known character set compatibility was an issue to take into account. They could've used combinations of two letters rather than diacritics if they needed this for diverse sounds. Especially odd that they did this while intending it to be used worldwide, yet not adapt to a common denominator script that would be available everywhere.
- jodrellblank 7y agoImho if you design a new language it should use a simple and widely compatible script. Why try to constrain creativity by requiring that new things obey old ways? New things should be different, or allowed to be different, or what's the point in them at all? They could've used combinations of two letters rather than diacritics if they needed this for diverse sound "They" (Zamenhof, the original creator) did that, it exists. Twice over, as the h-system he proposed in 1888 in the first year or two of Esperanto, and as the x-system: https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-sistemo https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-sistemo and the https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-sistemo https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-sistemo The h-system doesn't stand out and risks clashing with valid uses, and makes weird combinations like Hh, but it is the "official" one; the x-system stands out and doesn't clash, so can be automatically converted by computer, but looks awful.