>>13947295Adopting a new script with no relation to the historical one we have now is just plain unfathomable. It would need to have some relation to what we've been using or a transition would just never be feasible. A completely from-scratch fabricated alphabet is a pipe dream.
Contrast with how Esperanto was relatively popular as a constructed language because it used an existing alphabet in a very easy-to-intuit manner for speakers of almost any language which also used that alphabet.
As an aside, there have been a few attempts at making the alphabet in English "more intuitive" by changing what letters are called. For example, instead of ABC being read as "Ay, Bee, See", it would be "Ah, Buh, Kuh". This would have been a compromise with Shaw's desire to have an easily teachable language, as children could develop a rough sense for how to pronounce things merely by spelling most words out. ...As you can imagine, it didn't really catch on.
