Greek and Latin do not use macron. It is only in some schoolbooks to mark whether the vowel is long, but neither Latin nor Greek used such a thing. Latin used almost no diacritics except diaeresis (to distinguish for example that "Aëtius" has one syllable more then "Aetius"). Greek had not been using diacritics until the times of Byzantine empire when accute and grave accents were introduced regularly, ancient Greek did not write but spiritus lenis and asper (occasionally) and (sometimes) iota subscriptum. It is present in today's text but only because it was added later. But still, no macron, as the Greek used special letters for long vowels (ω, η and digraph ου for [ó], [é] and [ú]; α,ι,υ could be both long and short without any sign but potential iota subscriptum which corresponded to ommited iota resulting to prolonging of the vowel). However, the later diacriticon for lenght, was not the macron but rather something like circumflex or "~". So, no macron. Great, but the Czech orthography is mostly phonologic, and phonologically, there is only one vowel, not two (on the contrary, in the words like neexistovat, kooperovat, there are phonologically two vowels), the only exceptions are "ch" and "x". "bachamr" and "sechamr" - never heard of them, looked for the in Czech national corpora (approximately 600 millions words) and found nothing (even in diachronic corpus) :wink: Yes. Of course it is. I even invented some kind of orthography that would suit better the needs of Czech, but as it uses letters from cyrilics, I do not consider it optimal. And yes, it could be solved only with usage of basic latin alphabet, I am sure of it, but the digraphs would be terrible... Imagine words like "rzeczisztje", "nejczistszii", "lisztjiczka" or even "jesztjerziczka" - it is ridiculous! Latin used its 26 letters and it used them well! Understand that the English is the only and only language all over the world, that uses the same Latin alphabet as the ancient Latin without diacritics. Every other language uses some, be it French, Spanish, Italian, Hungarian, Latvian, Finnish, Vietnamese, Polish,... And why such affect? Because it is violating the nature of the language! The Czech orthograph with its diacritics is very useful and even though it provides so much advantages, there seem to be still people who would like to pervert it... If one learns a language, he must be able to read and write it (if it has the writing system, of course). If you want to distinguish its sounds, use some approximative transcription, but it is no good if you write the language to communicate ideas (well, yes, I admit, there was a phonetic periodical that was written in nothing but IPA, but still... that is somehow... different case). Understand that those proposed "changes" would bring more difficulties than advantages.