```Am 15.03.02, Herman Miller yscrifef:

> So I'm thinking that Gjarrda in English should just be called Jarda, and
> pronounced in the obvious manner as ['dZAr\d@] (instead of ['J\arda]). It's
> not clear what the name for Tirylhat should be, but ['tI48Kat] isn't an
> option in English! I might settle for Tirethlat, or not bother trying to
> represent the lateral fricative and just use the original name Tirelat.

I would probably settle for the latter: Tirelat. No foreign
sounds; no unusual spellings. Same for Jarda.

> The question is how far to go in Anglicizing conlang names. I used to be in
> the habit of spelling the long [i] sound as "ee" in English representation
> of words like "Zireen" and "Neesklaaz".

It's workable. We used to spell Hindoo et al that way.

> After switching to "i" for a while,
> I compromised, and now typically use "ie" for this sound. On the other
> hand, a word like "Zirien" risks being mispronounced as a three-syllable
> "zi-ri-en". So does it make sense to go so far as "Zireen" to avoid the
> chance of misinterpretation? Or would conlangers, who tend to be more
> familiar with languages than the average English speaker, assume this is
> meant to be pronounced [zire:n]?

I would assume /zIRiEn/ for the former and /zIRin/ for the
latter. The double letter spellings look oh so English. :)