Senjecas uses the dotless i (ı) for /ɪ/. Maybe that would work for /ɨ/. And <ɫ> for /l̥/ /l_0/. Charlie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sylvia Sotomayor" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 4:25:20 PM Subject: SL orthography, was Re: Why it's important to plan ahead when designing orthographies On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:38 PM, H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:57:11PM -0500, Daniel Bowman wrote: > [...] >> I figured I'd write this message as a cautionary tale to anyone >> starting off with a new language...think ahead before you lock >> yourself into an orthography scheme that can't grow with your plans >> for the language! > [...] > > Or you could just declare the old orthography the work of a previous > field linguist, who did not have the benefit of hindsight when he first > crafted the orthography based on incomplete evidence, and that now a > later field linguist, having access to the now larger body of evidence, > has created an improved orthography, and thereby you now declare the old > orthography deprecated, and the new one the new standard. I have been thinking about the orthography of the new language (sodna lɛni, or SL). It currently uses IPA in a broad phonemic way, but I have been thinking about switching to an ascii or close to ascii orthography. The biggest stumbling block is the vowel system: I have 7. i, ɨ, u, e, o, ɛ, a. I have been thinking about using 'y' for i and 'i' for 'ɨ' because I anglicize the most common verb tɨŋi as 'tingy', but I don't like the idea of doing kiɬi as 'kylhy'. Any ideas? And while we're at it, I am not sure about 'lh' for the voiceless lateral probably-a-fricative either. -S -- Sylvia Sotomayor The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.