Semitologists would disagree with you. Aside from that, I suggest you let me tell others what my opinions are and aren't.
Koko wrote:What about uvular fricative? If there's contrast between velar and uvular voiceless fricatives, don't <x> and <q>(respectively) seem like suitable representations? (one could use <r> for a voiced uvular fric. and if there's a trill, just use <rr>. One could also explore the diacritics and have one on the <r> to denote a uvular variant…)
Yeah, in that case it would make sense. I think it's best to follow a precedent set by natural languages. What I don't like is conlangs using "exotic" letters or digraphs just to look cool and alien. Say, a word like "Q'weshktleth" which is pronounced [dzeːlɘn].
I'm just making sure, 'cause "something similar" is too broad once you allow a velar ejective.
Well, in Semitic languages at least, /q/ comes from an older */k'/.
Would you allow etymological reasons for <q> not to indicate /q/ or something, mōdgethanc? In Isyan, they had /q/ in the proto-language which was often assimilated to /k/ before /w/. The /q/ was lost, but they kept <qu> for /ku, kw-/ in the modern language.
Even though that just looks like a very forced way to get the result you want, yeah, it's better if there is a historical reason for orthographic quirks.