Back in time, I used a typewriter which was suitable for French (which I don't speak) and had its three accents: ` ´ and ^.

I used to type ` and ´ before the u, and so I achieved something very similar to the ŭ (it was in fact a small angle instead of a small hook, but I could live with that).

Regards,

Daniel

darkweasel:

marcuscf:

erinja:At the time he created the language, you would have to have a special typewriter custom made to use Esperanto's unique characters

I think any typewriter with a combining-^ would work.

Except for ŭ.

RiotNrrd:I've only glanced at Interlingua a few times over the years, so I might be wrong, but I *believe* that it is primarily meant to be a written rather than spoken language, and that the creators tended to preserve the spellings from the source languages, either in whole or in part. The pronunciation rules of the source languages, of course, differ somewhat, so the pronunciation rules of Interlingua need to be more complex in order to allow for them. And you also would get a lot of plain ol' exceptions.

To me, Interlingua *looks* more natural than Esperanto, which at times can look very artificial. But Esperanto is simpler, which is the benefit balancing out the "artificiality" cost. I think choosing "straightforward" over "cooler looking" is in keeping with Zamenhofs general design approach.

I once thought Interlingua might be an option until I looked into Esperanto and found to have so many good features. I love the straightforward approach that underlies Esperanto.

jchthys:I don't know about you, and maybe it's just because I know Esperanto, but I think Esperanto has always looked the least artificial of constructed languages to my eyes. Ido and Interlingua look terure aĉa (horrible) to my eyes

In reality Esperanto only looks artificial initially, though that might last longer if someone has never seen other languages with accented letters. One gets used to the look of the language as time goes on.