The difference in height MAY be OK when type-written, but when hand-written...
Then again you probably don't intend for it to be handwritten, although that's what people will be ending up doing.
One of the [major] problems with your Jyutzyu is you are forcing vowel length distinction to a language that does not have it.
There has been a Romanization that indicates phonemes by vowel length called Penkyamp. Also, native speakers more naturally pronounce in and ing the right way, than an iing vs an eng/ing the right way.
It seems like you're trying to "change Cantonese into a purer form by referencing Middle Chinese in your transcription". As much as I love Middle Chinese, I do not like that idea at all. (although I do like my TCC :P)
"Phonemic or not, there lies an undeniable pattern that has been shown and explained many times. I chose to take advantage of this pattern."
This is rather nonsense. As I have stated, there is no vowel length distinction, and take, English, for instance, vowels are long before voiced consonants.
"They're native Cantonese speakers from Hong Kong and Macau, and not even they agree amongst themselves 100% of the time."
That is precisely the error. Alveolo-palatals do not exist in Hong Kong speech for the most part. The only sh-like sound they have opposed to is the English one, which they immediately substitute to words like Sha Tin.
Well I hope you do realize that the vowel in "him1" is actually short.
"For Mandarin Zhuyin, I agree, but for reasons I've highlighted above, CPS is far more consistent than its Mandarin cousin."
It is still highly inconsistent.
"This confusion you're talking about would only exist if they've become exposed and accustomed to Occidental phonological concepts"
Do bare in mind that people learn English. And people pronounce Cantonese Romanizations in an Anglicized manner.
I'm sorry to say but the more you said on it, the less realistic this is. I cannot support this project because it is even more chaotic than the most cumbersome Romanizations I know of currently (being Pinyin, Penkyamp and Jrytjryr Romazri) I can understand them without a lot of problem, but as a tool for public use, no.
Perhaps this could be use by language enthusiasts or linguistics for analytic purposes, but I do not think it is suitable at all as a teaching tool because all you have managed to do is classify phonemes from the phonetics perspective and it bares little resemblance to the actual living language at all.
Then again you probably don't intend for it to be handwritten, although that's what people will be ending up doing.
One of the [major] problems with your Jyutzyu is you are forcing vowel length distinction to a language that does not have it.
There has been a Romanization that indicates phonemes by vowel length called Penkyamp. Also, native speakers more naturally pronounce in and ing the right way, than an iing vs an eng/ing the right way.
It seems like you're trying to "change Cantonese into a purer form by referencing Middle Chinese in your transcription". As much as I love Middle Chinese, I do not like that idea at all. (although I do like my TCC :P)
"Phonemic or not, there lies an undeniable pattern that has been shown and explained many times. I chose to take advantage of this pattern."
This is rather nonsense. As I have stated, there is no vowel length distinction, and take, English, for instance, vowels are long before voiced consonants.
"They're native Cantonese speakers from Hong Kong and Macau, and not even they agree amongst themselves 100% of the time."
That is precisely the error. Alveolo-palatals do not exist in Hong Kong speech for the most part. The only sh-like sound they have opposed to is the English one, which they immediately substitute to words like Sha Tin.
Well I hope you do realize that the vowel in "him1" is actually short.
"For Mandarin Zhuyin, I agree, but for reasons I've highlighted above, CPS is far more consistent than its Mandarin cousin."
It is still highly inconsistent.
"This confusion you're talking about would only exist if they've become exposed and accustomed to Occidental phonological concepts"
Do bare in mind that people learn English. And people pronounce Cantonese Romanizations in an Anglicized manner.
I'm sorry to say but the more you said on it, the less realistic this is. I cannot support this project because it is even more chaotic than the most cumbersome Romanizations I know of currently (being Pinyin, Penkyamp and Jrytjryr Romazri) I can understand them without a lot of problem, but as a tool for public use, no.
Perhaps this could be use by language enthusiasts or linguistics for analytic purposes, but I do not think it is suitable at all as a teaching tool because all you have managed to do is classify phonemes from the phonetics perspective and it bares little resemblance to the actual living language at all.