Marcel c'è nünc El Duceu

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I do think it is safe to assume /c/ for ‹q›, or at least a palatalised /kʲ/, and that the annotation as "kj" was only a crutch, because "c" was used for /ts/ and other IPA symbols were not available (e.g."ëS" for [əʃ].
A few years back, I had the discussion of whether "qátor" wasn't supposed to be /cator/, because it is derived from the Insular (p-)Celtic word for the numeral, which has a palatal velar stop. Cresti, if I remember correctly, seemed to agree.

Sir Tomás gives [katër] as the pronunciation of qator in his 1999 addenda/errata to the ScurzGram (link), though I wouldn't mind allowing ['kjatər] or ['kjator] as long as we can all agree that its spelled with a Q. Though if I'm honest, I thought qator was derived from quattuor as a replacement of the former Celtic form ceatháir [kahër] (which, as you said, should've had [c]).

Interesting. I am not sure however to interpret the part with "posh/mush", because that does not rhyme for me even with the shwa. ScGr2 says: "When the ending is stressed, it is pronounced [aS]. When unstressed, it is pronounced [ëS]. [...] Two irregular verbs have aberrant endings, but still end in -rë. These aberrant verbs are irë [iëS] [...]"
Personally, I interpret this as Madison not understanding how i-stem verbs work. I will shrug at that for the moment, but I would suggest either a spelling reform to "íar(h)" and "tíar(h)", or actually using a spelling pronunciation.

It's really annoying that talossan.com insisted on using Englishy pronunciation guides instead of the IPA because of stuff like this. In General American, "posh" and "mush" would be pronounced as [pɑʃ] and [mʌ̟ʃ] respectively, which would be clumsy approximations of [aʃ] and [əʃ]. Not really a fan of "pronunciation reforms" honestly.

I mean, I do not really care. Both seem valid and logical, but the "-rh" is somewhat unique, and worth keeping as an infinitive suffix, too.

-rh for the infinitive was probably the second most controversial aspect of the 2007 reform, right after Î-gate. Personally I'm just glad that there was an agreement one way or the other.

By the way, one correction I do have, I checked again, is that "acestilor" should have a [ʃ] for the "s", because ScGr2 lists it as "aCeSCëlër".

Right, my mistake. I'll fix that right away.

As to the /l/ → [ð], I think there may be a case for the /l/ becoming a voiced interdental fricative intervocalically, at least optionally, because ScGr2 says:

Other peculiar phonetic features include the fronting of word-initial [l] to [D] (as in English "this") between vowels: the phrases la divertà ("the fun") and la livertà ("the liberty") are pronounced alike: [la Diverta]. This innovation has even crept into a few word-medial situations, e.g. fodiclâ [foDiklë], "follicle".

I'm not sure. For me it's pretty telling that Ben felt the need to respell it with a D even back then. Ben seemed to think it was just an exception to the rule. I mean, I guess we could go and ask him sometimes.

EDIT: For the purposes of this temporary short-term standard though, I'd rather stay as safe as humanly possible and leave the big reforms to the Unified Standard.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I mean, I do not really care. Both seem valid and logical, but the "-rh" is somewhat unique, and worth keeping as an infinitive suffix, too.

No, no, NO. It is probably the worst (as in most aesthetically displeasing) thing about the post-Ben reforms.

Seriously, we get further away from our goal if you try to unpick the provisional standard. If you want to make a case for that spelling, do so as part of the long-term project, and try to get a consensus.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Yup, I wasn't wrong.

[Iac Marscheir]

toßa El glheþ cuntzina aisþetica zespâts quand?

(toßâ El glheþ cuntzina aisþeticâ zespäts quând?)

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

El glheþ schi tent 'n aisþetică, mas c'e'n aisþetică... special à ça. Come en zía-si, quirkească.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac’hlerglünä da Lhiun]

Seriously, we get further away from our goal if you try to unpick the provisional standard. If you want to make a case for that spelling, do so as part of the long-term project, and try to get a consensus.

Listen, I appreciate that you want things to happen, and you want them NOW, but nothing is going to happen if there is not discussion and communication. And it will be about this provisional standard, and it will be about a future standard, and it will be about previous standards. We cannot move forward if we do not discuss, so can you please, for the love of almighty Hecate, let us discuss?

[Iac Marscheir]

Echida. Sa noi non neceßarmint cuntzinent schi ça sembla ben, corect?

(Echidâ. Så noi non neceßármînt cuntzinent schi ça sembla ben, corêct?)

[Iac Marscheir]

Ok, how about this: start with one standard, list every single change that anyone comes up with and load them all onto a ballot where, for each on the list, anyone and everyone can vote whether to keep it or throw it.

When that's done, put each set of conflicting ideas on another ballot and have another vote.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Let me be crystal clear about the procedure from here.

1) The Provisional Standard, which will be used for the glheþinaziun of NewWitt and for all other official purposes until replaced by a long-term standard, is whatever Marcel as Provisional Convenor of SIGN says it is until SIGN is operating, and that is the PDF in Marcel's signature until I'm informed otherwise by Marcel.
2)  The rest of you should be prioritizing getting SIGN up and running so you can establish the rules and procedure whereby we will create a long-term standard. As soon as the SIGN rules are established, Marcel's "linguistic dictatorship" ends. I am not opposed to discussion about linguistic norms; but I think the #1 priority, without which no real progress is possible, is to establish SIGN.
3) I'm not happy that @the Ladîntsch Naziunál has so far ignored my question about how he intends to do his job.

I am more than happy for all the debate and discussion in the world, but I am setting priorities for action here because I will not allow another 2 years of faffing around (and if I can't stop it, it will at least be clear it was not my fault that the language community collapsed).

[Iac Marscheir]

For the record, I wasn't ignoring you. I didn't know you'd made that thread. I responded immediately after I saw this post.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

How about a good place to start is to convert l'Overstéir so it gives "Marcel's Provisional Standard" spelling as well as the Classic and Common ones?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

How about a good place to start is to convert l'Overstéir so it gives "Marcel's Provisional Standard" spelling as well as the Classic and Common ones?

I've looked at the code and my God it's a mess. Maybe it's possible to add a third option but it wouldn't be easy.

Oh by the way Iac, I found a few more bugs as well. try conjugating pevar in the past tense and with both spellings enabled!