Herman Miller wrote: >I've been considering using the IPA as a transcription system for my new >languages, such as Virelli, and the older ones that I'm planning on >maintaining or bringing back to life, like Zharranh. Most of my langs >(other than a few like Eklektu, Ludireo, and Tilya, which were designed >around the Latin alphabet) either have their own writing systems, or at >least are normally written using something other than the Latin alphabet. >And yet, they each have their own Latin alphabet transcriptions, which are >totally different from one another (despite attempts to come up with >unified systems like Kolagian Orthography). > >However, I've run into difficulties with using IPA, and I'm now thinking >that a new unified Latin-alphabet transcription might have some advantages. > >Some problems I've been having with IPA: > >* Certain distinctions that are phonemic in my languages require >diacritics, which goes against the general IPA tendency of one symbol per >phoneme. Virelli for instance has distinct /t_d/ and /t/. I recently had >the idea of using t with stroke (U+0166, U+0167) for the dental t in the >Latin transcription. On the other hand, far more diacritics are used in >Latin alphabet transcriptions. > > > Don't bother. Just use the diacritics. They don't really affect the look of the thing anyway. >* Many IPA letters don't have capitals, making it difficult to distinguish >between words and proper names. > > > Well, German(which, if I recall correctly, it your native language, though I could be completely out) doesn't distinguish between nouns and names. >* Some sounds just don't exist in the IPA. Virelli has a voiceless palatal >lateral fricative, and Lindiga has a voiceless retroflex lateral fricative. >Virelli could use /L_0/, but this doesn't really make it clear that it's a >fricative. I've patched together a /K\`/ symbol for Lindiga with an "l with >belt" and a "combining retroflex hook below". There's a "whistled >articulation" diacritic in the ExtIPA symbols for disordered speech, but >not many fonts include this symbol.... > > > [K_j] and [K`] respectively, I'd expect. >* The nasal vowel diacritic doesn't stack with tone accents. In an ideal >world, the font system would handle this, but that's not likely to happen >any time soon (or for years to come, at the rate it's going). Using the >Polish nasal hook fixes this problem for most vowels, except /y/ (and >fortunately, I don't have a tonal language with /y~/ as a phoneme). > > > Make up a picture? Or use LaTeX... >* For similar reasons, tone accents don't work with /1/ (the dot gets in >the way), and the voiceless diacritic doesn't work with /j/ (but /C/ could >substitute for /j_0/). > > > see above >* Having a single symbol (letter + diacritic) for some of the common >affricates would be nice; Tirelat needs the distinction between /ts/ and >/t_s/. The IPA ligatures are officially disapproved, but the tie bar is >awkward. > > > Put a dash in between the non-affricates? >* ASCII versions of IPA are just plain ugly. Romanization will continue to >be necessary for email. For instance, in the romanization system for >Virelli, I use "y" to indicate palatal sounds, so that voiceless palatal >lateral fricative is written "hly". The word for "eight" is "hly˙" in >romanization, and [L_0W_H] in X-SAMPA. (It doesn't look much better in APA: >[$_om\^4].) > > > Yeah, well, work out a romanisation system. Acutally, If I was to give my advice, don't bother with the IPA. Just use lots of di/triagraphs and diacritics.