On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 11:32:08 -0700, JOEL MATTHEW PEARSON
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Herman Miller wrote:
>
>> "ng" and "ch" would probably be more widely recognized. I've used "c" =
for
>> [tS] in some romanizations (e.g. Cispa), but I never really liked the =
look
>> of it, and I'm going back to "ch" in the redesigned versions of these
>> languages (in the case of Chispa, that was the original spelling). Of
>> course, "ng" has the problem of being ambiguous between [N] and [Ng]; =
I'm
>> leaning toward the Swahili solution, writing [N] as <ng'>.
>
>An alternative would be the Malay solution, where [N] is "ng" and [Ng]
>is "ngg".  In an earlier conlang of mine called Kosan, I used "nh" for
>[N] and "ng" for [Ng].
>
>Matt.

True. I used the Malay solution in some of my earlier romanizations, such
as the one used for Jaghri. I tend to reserve "nh" for the palatal nasal
(or in rare cases an interdental nasal).

It really depends on which one is more common. I figured that [Ng] is
probably more common medially than [N], in the languages I've designed or
plan on designing, if they contrast at all (although I haven't actually
counted them). Olaetyan has [Ng] finally, but not [N]; most other =
languages
have [N] finally (if at all) and not [Ng]. In the online Olaetyan
dictionary I wrote final [Ng] as "ngg" to emphasize that the "g" is
pronounced, but in actual Olaetyan writing I always wrote "ng".

--
languages of Kolagia---> =
+---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/languages.html>---
      Thryomanes        /"If all Printers were determin'd not to print =
any
   (Herman Miller)     / thing till they were sure it would offend no =
body,
   moc.oi @ rellimh <-/  there would be very little printed." -Ben =
Franklin