On 22 Jan 2012, at 10:02, Michael Everson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 22 Jan 2012, at 07:11, Scott Hlad wrote: > >> http://www3.telus.net/scotto/rumansa/TheGrammarOfAsirka.pdf > > Why the terms "hard" and "soft" for the consonants? [ɾ] and [l] are very similar? I see that you have spelling rules regarding these, but how is [x] hard and other voiceless fricatives like [ʃ] an [θ] soft? I'm not sure the terminology is convincing. In Slavic "soft" is often used for "palatalized"; in Irish "slender" is used. Front vs back? > > In general I would find the look of the language more convincing if you got beyond ASCII. ch, dh, kh, nh, sh, th, zh could all be Ćć Đđ Ꝁꝁ/Ḱḱ Ńń Śś Ŧŧ Źź for instance. Now, I happen to rather like ASCII comparability (I think too many accents are fiddly) *but* I would agree that stuff like: ch = č sh = š zh = ž I think a caron is more "Eastern-European-ish" than acute although I don't know what to suggest for d k n and t, although I'm sure you can get carons for them. > > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ Sam Stutter [log in to unmask] "No e na il cu barri"