Senjecas uses the dotless i (ı) for /ɪ/.  Maybe that would work for /ɨ/.
And <ɫ> for /l̥/ /l_0/.


----- 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.
Sylvia Sotomayor

The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.