@Ominsezy<j> is /ɟ/ to conserve space.
Um. The person who asked about that was me, not Omnizesý... Anyway, whether or not Gothic had a phonemic /ɟ/ is far from clear. In any case it would always be a long [ɟ:], so spelling it with a single letter seems counterintuitive, IMO.
<y> is /j/ because most languages use that letter for /j/, only slavic, uralic, germanic, and some romance languages don't use it as /j/ [if it's used at all]
...and Guaraní, Welsh, Albanian, Lithuanian, Malagasy and Turkmen, just to name a few examples from Wikipedia. Also, what Avo said. Gothic is a Germanic language, so when spelling it in the Latin alphabet, I'd use Germanic-looking spelling conventions. In addition, there's the thing that the Gothic letter winja (which I apparently can't post on this board without getting an SQL error, but see here
) was apparently sometimes used to transcribe /y/ in Greek loans; IMO, it would make sense to reserve <y> for transliterating that.
Although really, if I were to design a modernized orthography for Gothic, I'd probably use the Greek alphabet. The Latin is rather boring, and the original Gothic script was primarily based on Greek anyway.
@Trailsend I merged masculine and feminine
Again, that was me. Trailsend hasn't even posted in this thread.
A) gender in a language is sexist
Not this again.
B) gender in a language has halfway been proven to limit your understanding on the concept of actual genderWhat?
When, where, by whom?
C) it makes the language easier to learn
Arguably, yes. However, anyone who's a language geek enough to be interested in learning Gothic probably won't care too much about it being "easy"; "historically accurate" would probably rate a lot higher.
D) most forms were getting repetitive, and often were too similar to the neutral.
If there's evidence that the masculine and feminine were already starting to merge in fourth-century Gothic, then I suppose you could have some kind of case for merging them.