John Vertical wrote:

>Without further ado�
>/    t_> ts)_> tK)_> tS)_> k_> q_>  /
>/p   t   ts)   tK)   tS)   k   q   ?/
>/b_t d_t             dZ)_t g_t G\_t /
>/b_v d_v                            /
>/f   T   s     K     S     x   X   h/
>/v_t D_t z_t   l_t   Z_t   G_t R_t  /
>/v_v D_v z_v   l_v                  /
>/m_0 n_0             j_0   w_0 R\_0 /
>/m_t n_t       l~_t  j_t   w_t R\_t /
>/m_v n_v       l~_v  j_v   w_v R\_v /
>_t is "brethy voice", _v is "tense voice"; this distinction has a variety 
>realizations in dialects.
Aargh! This IS complex. (First off, i keep thinking "_t" is  _tense_...)

>The palatoalveolars are only marginally contrastiv
>with lhaterals & especially velars.

That may be, but unless one or the other is extremely rare, or conditioned 
(even partially so), IMO you still need a way to distinguish them.

>Okay, onto the issue. Here's what I have for the consonants @TM:
><t' ts'  tx'   c'  c' k'> (ejective stops/affric.)
OK t' ts' _tl'_ c' _k' q'_

><p t ts tx c c k q> (vl.stops/affric)
OK p t ts tl c k q, and 0294 (real ?) or maybe just apostrophe for /?/

><b d j g>
bh dh jh gh  (breathy vd.stops/affric)

><ƀ đ>
b d    (tense vd stops)

><ph th s  x    ch ch kh h>
    f  th s   l-bar ç   x  qh  h  (vl.frics)

><bh dh z l jh gh>
vh ðh  zh lh  çh gh  (brethy vd.frics)

><ƀh đh ƶ ł>
v ð z l  (tense vd.frics)

><pm tn � f kr>
  hm  hn  hy  hw  hr (vl.nasals/resonants)

><bm dn ln y v gr>
mh  nh  nl  yh  wh  rh (breathy vd.nas/cont.)

><ƀm đn łn ? ? ǥr>
m  n  l   y  w  r  (tense vd. nas/res)

Just tentative, of course; I'm trying to be consistent.........

Re vowels etc. I understand the need for no diacritics, since you're going 
to use them for tones-- but have you considered some other way of marking 
tone?  Perhaps: low XX-  rising XX/   high unmarked
That would free up diacritics for the vowels
>/i i\ u/ -->  i  [i-uml or i-breve or y or y-uml]   u
>/e @   / -->  e    e-breve
>/ a  A / ==>   a   o
>/i~ i\~ u~/  with following n or m
>/e~       /
>/ a~   A~ /
>/ai  ei  @i Ai/  --> ai  ei  e-breve+i   oi
>/ai\ ei\ @u Au/ --? a e e-brev  + whatever is used for i\ (ï, i-breve, ÿ) 
>  and ebreve+u, ou
>/   i@     u@   /  ==> i u +   i\ char.
>/e6 i6 i\6 u6 o6/ ea  ia  (i\+a) ua  oa
>/ai~ i@~ e@~/  as above with foll. nasal

I'm not happy with these, actually. Your systems are a little better 
>Syllable structure allows only CV or initial syllabic N.
Is the language monosyllabic???
Do you mean the initial syllabic N can occur before a consonant? In that 
case (if not monosyllabic) how would you distinguish say vs. 
= [] ???

You might use Vy and Vw for some of the diphthongs.

>Scheme 1: Straightforward
>Monofthongs spell'd as per IPA, except /i\ A/ = <y o>. Difthongs spell'd by
>their components, except a final /6/ as <a>, /ai\ ei\/ as <au eu> and /i@
>u@/ as <ie uo>. Nasality by syllable-final <m> or <n>.

Actually I like this. You might end up with "yy" as a word-- odd, but clear.
>Main problem here is not that it's boring, but that it clashes with my
>current consonant scheme. I would have room to change <y u> to <u w>, but
>that does not seem enticing.
>Scheme 2: Digraphy
>/i i\ u/ = <ei eu ou> -- but why digraphs for /i u/???  eu is good, but I 
>see I want to use it for a diphthong..........

>/e @ a A/ = <ea e a aa>  maybe ee e a aa ???

>/@i @u i@ u@/ = <ii uu i u>  --> ei eu ie ue

>/ei ei\ ai ai\ Ai Au/ = <eai eau ai au aai aau> --> eei eeu ai aeu aai aau
>/e6 i6 i\6 u6 o6/ = <ee ie ue uo oo> -->  eea ia eua ua oa  (your i\6=ue is 
>Nasality as before.
>This isn't too confusing, is this?
No worse than Dutch :-)))))
I hope I haven't added to the confusion.... and now me brain hurts :-))))