Mark J. Reed wrote: > What would you suggest he use instead? It would never occur to a > non-linguist Anglophone to read <x> as /x/, only as /ks/ medially and /z/ > initially. The digraph <kh> would arguably have been better; it is often > used in the pronunciation guides of American dictionaries for /x/. But I've > hardly ever seen it in transliterations. It is the norm when transliterating Russian and other Cyrillic languages, at least for an English-speaking non-scientific audience (e.g. "Kazakh" from Russian _Казах_). This is of course because Russian has a post-alveolar affricative /tɕ/ as well, transcribed "ch" or "tch". -- Tristan.