I feel like pinyin is needlessly confusing, and frankly wade-giles transcription is as well, and it's all because of the retroflex-affricate intersection
Mandarin plosives have an aspiration distinction rather than voicing, and both systems handle this in an oké way, though I prefer pinyin and it is by far the most popular system these days. if I were doing a WG-style system, I'd replace the apostrophes with <h>
/p, pʰ/ = PY <b, p> and WG <p, p'>
/t, tʰ/ = PY <d, t> and WG <t, t'>
/k, kʰ/ = PY <g, k> and WG <k, k'>
then we get to the fricative-affricate trios,
Dent. /s, ts, tsʰ/ = PY <s, z, c> and WG <s, ts, ts'>
Retro. /ʂ, tʂ, tʂʰ/ = PY <sh, zh, ch> and WG <sh, ch, ch'>
Palat. /ɕ, tɕ, tɕʰ/ = PY <x, j, q> and WG <hs, ch, ch'>
and here pinyin is just misleading. I actually quite enjoy <q> aesthetically for a "ch-like" sound, but if we're trying to use single letters for everything, firstly, why ? and secondly, using digraphs only for the retroflexes,, moreover the second letter being <_h> but it's not for aspiration, is a Really Weird Choice. and WG doesn't even bother to distinguish the retroflexes so that's not an option.
I like the pinyin-style "pseudo-voicing" transcription for plosives, but I do like the idea of using <_h> for the affricates in the culmær system. that is inconsistent, yes, but it feels more intuitive
dental looks better than <s, dz, ts>
retroflex <ś, tś, tśh> ... or perhaps we use <x, tx, txh> here to avoid diacritics for some reason, though it is suboptimal for people coming from pinyin which I don't want to disregard as a design criterion
palatal <c, tc, tch> or <j, tj, tjh>, maybe even <c, tj, tch> ? the <c, j> feel good as palatals because IPA, but again we've got the pinyin issue. and it's a real pity to lose the <q> here
it's actually much more difficult to redesign this in a satisfying way than anticipated, so much more tricky ...













