Quoting Christophe Grandsire <[log in to unmask]>:

> > It just occured to me that you shouldn't use the pipe as a diacritic
> at
> > all,
> > since it looks like the IPA sign for a dental click.
> >
> Very true, but I cannot find a better idea for a "stop" diacritic, and !
> is
> definitely better for clicks than for stops. But if you have a better
> idea for
> a "stop" diacritic among the non-letter characters available in ASCII,
> I'd be
> happy to change that. That's why I said it was only a beta version :)))
> .

One could even argue that you shouldn't be using the exclamation mark as a
diacritic, since it's the IPA sign for a (post-)alveolar click.

It'd perhaps be simplest to decree that the rule about keeping the values of
IPA signs doesn't apply to the non-pulmonic consonants, but that's rather
against the spirit of the C-IPA, isn't it?

One solution'd be to introduce an extra diacrticizer along with "^", which'd be
used for turning signs from their IPA values into diacritics that doesn't
correlate to an IPA one. Say we'd use the double quote sign ("), which's not
entirely dissimilar to the circumflex for this purpose; we'd then have [!] as
for an alveolar click, and ["!] as the clickizer (eg [p"!] for a bilabila
click. Similarly [|] would be a dental click and [f"|] for a voiceless
labiodental stop.

For languages where clicks don't turn up, one could write simply [f|], and for
ones that has clicks but not stop+click clusters, [p!], similarly to how
aspiration, for phonemic purposes, is sometimes simply indicated by a following
[h]; eg [th] for [t^h].