On 7 Oct 2003 at 19:41, Paul Bennett wrote:

> Qan'kdmenet qaiwtphep dhmnopron, lhmn ttras'eismeit.
> /?ANkEd@menet ?Ajw@tEvep d1hmOnop@r\on KEm@n tEtEr\AZejzmejt/

Of course, the {w} in {qaiwtphep} should be a {u}. Unless of
course, I can find some other way to mark palatalised consonants, and
become free to use {y}, {} and {w} for nonvocalic {i}, {} and {u}.

Would it be too much of a stretch to go in the direction of using
{k'}, {t'} and {p'} instead of {ky}, {ty} and {py}?

Also, it strikes me that a disproportionately large fraction of the
lexicon that I've been deriving has used "front" harmony (vowels {i e
   a}), as opposed to "back" harmony (vowels {u o    a}). I was
hoping to make it about a 50-50 split, but it's turning out more like
70-30 or even 80-20. I'm dissatisfied with that.

Also also, I'm thinking about romanising {} and {} as {} and {}
when they occur in back-harmonising words.

Let's try that collection of ideas out...

Old (corrected):
Qan'kdmenet qaiutphep dhmnopron, lhmn ttras'eismeit.

Qan'kdmenet qaywtphep dhmnopron, lhmn ttras'eysmeyt.