On 5/29/2013 12:36 PM, BPJ wrote:

>> The obvious fix is to use <kh> for the /x/ sound. It could be
>> mistaken for /k.h/ as in "backhand" or "sinkhole", but not much
>> else, and Tirelat doesn't have an /h/ sound. Plus it gives me an
>> excuse to write <gh> for /ɣ/. I've never much liked <ġ> or <ğ>, or
>> any of the alternatives like <ƣ> ("gha", U+01A3).
> How do you write other fricatives and affricates?

In Tirelat or other languages?

Tirelat has <f, v, s, z, š, ž>, representing the sounds /f v s z ʂ ʐ/. 
If I had a language that distinguished between post-alveolar /ʃ ʒ/ and 
retroflex /ʂ ʐ/, I might want to spell <š> and <ž> differently (the 
obvious way is <ṣ, ẓ>). Besides the affricates <ts> and <dz>, some 
dialects have <tš> and <dž>.

> I could live with <m ṃ n ṇ ň ṇ̌ ŋ ŋ̇ l ḷ r ṛ> if I only could
> get them all precomposed! Moreover most fonts have a <ǥ>
> struck through the tail, while I like it struck through the
> (upper) bowl.

If I ever put out another version of Thryomanes, I'll move the line on 
the <ǥ>.

> I've tried to go all in the other way with digraphs, but those
> certainly rub me the wrong way. The words just don't look right!
> | <æ> <e>
> | <c> <ch>
> | <ç> <sh>
> | <e> <y>
> | <j> <jh>, <zh>
> | <q> <gh>
> | <x> <kh>
> | <y> <j>

Well, the appearance of whole words as opposed to the sounds on their 
own is certainly important. If I look at Tirelat words like "žihrhi" or 
"zahghë", all those h's make me think that it might be better to write 
long vowels as double ("žiirhi", "zaaghë"). A change in one spelling