Saaropean wrote:I don't agree with "Mahs" (or "Mas"?), because the plural is ["ma:s@], which would force you to double the consonant or change to ß again. Unless you do like the Dutchies and write [s] as S and [z] as Z, but what about the affricative [ts] then?
Well, if you go that far, you can as well write the [ts] as TS...
And think about foreigners, too. Many think ß is a Greek letter or even a B, they have no idea how to write this monster and can't imagine it's pronounced [s].
So what? Do you propose writing Chinese with Roman letters so that foreigners won't have to struggle with those 24-stroke "monsters"? I don't think that would be a very good idea...what about Icelandic "Þ" and similar letters? You don't want to abolish all characters that aren't used in a majority of languages, I hope
Of course every language has a unique phonemic system and grammar, which justifies unique spellings. Writing Arabic without vowels, Chinese with characters and German with umlauts is logical when one looks at the very structure of those languages.
Why? It's not logical, it's historical. In each case you have a number of possibilities as to how to graphically represent the language, and the ones existing are arbitrary, not born out of logic.