R A Brown wrote:

>> I know about <w>'s origins but Welsh is unique.  It's not really anglo 
>> centric. Most of the languages that use it, assign it to either [w], 
>> [v] or something close to those.
> But you wrote that Deini's use of a symbol that Deini's use of <x>, 
> which in all natlang orthographies denotes either a single consonant or 
> a consonant compound, to denote a vowel was no worse than the Welsh use 
> of <w> as a vowel.

You seem to have those mixed up.  SASXSEK uses <x> only in compounds 
where it's /ə/ (vowels are /a e i o u ə/).   What I was mentioning 
that most languages use <w> as a consonant so it is a bit strange to 
look at Welsh text and see it used as a vowel.  Many languages have 
something in their orthography that stands out as a bit odd.  Polish 
spellings, though fairly regular seem a bit strange from the 
outside.  To some extent this isn't really a bas thing because it 
gives the language a bit of character, making it easy to identify.

Deini is a different story because it actually has its own script. 
Both <x> and <y> are used in Romanizations because it has seven 
vowels and as mentioned I was avoiding diacritics.

 > ...
> I really do not see how the modern Welsh use is comparable to the use of 
> <x> = [ə] in certain conlangs.

Again, it's the expectation of most that <w> is a consonant.  Its 
history isn't relevant.  Modern usage is what it is and that's what 
most people know it to be.  It wasn't about similaries just that 
there are some strange orthographies out there.  I just happened to 
pick on the Welsh <w> as an example.