I’m fine with how the Glosa alphabet and sounds are. However, I do like th= e idea of using “x” for “sh” (as done by Ceqli and many other conlangs), a= nd would welcome the “ks” sounds being spelled as “ks”. Also, I would spel= l “xanto” (yellow), “xeno” (strange), “xilo” (wood) as “zanto”, “zeno”, “z= ilo”, and the same for any word that uses “x” when “z” would be better. We= ll, I guess I see the logic in using “ku” or “kw” instead of “q” for the “= kyoo” or kw” sound. But there’s no end to tinkering with the alphabet. I = would vote to just leave it alone as is.

Then again, since Glosa is not b= eing promoted very well by the current owner(s), perhaps a Glosa reform mo= vement similiar to Esperanto’s Ido offshoot would be in order. I don’t kno= w.

Sarv

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, “master1077” <master1077@= …> wrote:

“sc” (sh) should be “c”

“c” (ch) should be “tc”

”= x” should be “(k)s”

“q” should be “k(u)”

or alternatively….

“sc” (sh) as “x”

“c” (ch) can stay the same

“x” as “(k)s”

“q” as “k(u)”