On 6/24/10 2:39 PM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote: > 2010-06-23 18:35, Dana Nutter skrev: >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:00 PM, John Lategan<[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>>> Here's the current orthography, a simple 1:1 grapheme:phoneme system. >>>> >>>> < a b c d ð e ə f g h ħ i j ɉ k l m n ŋ o p q r s š t þ u v w y z ž> >>>> / a b ʧ d ð e ə f g h x i j ʤ k l m n ŋ o p ɣ ʀ s ʃ t þ u v w ɨ z ʒ / >>>> >>> >>> You've got a stroked-h and a<đ> (if you replace thorn with<ŧ>) it >>> looks consistent. I dont feel that<ǥ> would fit in because the stroke >>> is too low. >>> You have<š> and<ž>, so perhaps<ǧ> would look better.<ǧ> not<ğ>, >>> because<ğ>'s diacritic is round >> >> I'm not worried too much about consistency. I thought about stroke-T >> and even stroked S and Z but liked having edh and thorn. You're >> right about G. It's hard to tell the difference though between a >> breve and hacek. >> > > I'm partial to the stroked <ǥ>, but it does have quite crappy > font coverage (my favorite mono font doesn't have it!) and it > *is* not well suited for handwriting. When in doubt about q > I'd have considered using ḡ U+1E21 LATIN SMALL LETTER G WITH > MACRON. As for <ǧ> I'd rather use it for /dZ/, since <ɉ> > is bad for all the same reasons as <ǥ>. I finally decided on <ǧ>. <ɉ> isn't the best solution but I needed something and a J-form works better for what I'm trying ot achieve than a G-form. Something about G forms that just don't feel right for me, especially E-o's <ĝ>. I think I would have preferred <ǰ> but it seems to have ever poorer coverage than <ɉ> so that's what I used. Also, someone mentioned vowels before, but I don't want any vowels with diacritics because proper names can be written with an acute to show where the stress falls.