International Language Part 31

(2) If, then, _c"_is retained, what value is to be given to it? The hard and soft sounds of the English _c_ (as in English "cat," "civil") are already represented by _k_ and _s_. Neither of these letters can be dispensed with in the international language; and it is undesirable to confuse orthographically or phonetically _c_-roots with _s_- or _k_-roots. Therefore another value must be found for the symbol _c_.

The choice is practically narrowed down to the Italian soft _c_ = _ch_, as in English "church," and the German[1] _c_ = _ts_ in English "bits."

Now _ch_ is a useful and distinctive sound, and has been adopted in Esperanto with a symbol of its own: c. Therefore _ts_ remains.

[1]Also late Latin and early Norman French.

(3) Why not then abolish _c_ and write _ts_ instead? For answer, see No. (1) above. It is a worse evil to introduce such monstrosities as _tsento_, _tsivila_, etc., than to allow two symbols for the same sound, _ts_ and _c_. International language has to appeal to the eye as well as to the ear.

This matter of the _c_ is only one more instance of the wisdom of Dr.

Zamenhof in refusing to make a fetish of slavish adherence to rule.

Practical common-sense is a safer guide than theory in attaining the desired goal-ease (of eye, ear, tongue, and pen) for greatest number.

In practice no confusion arises between _c_ and _ts_.