Thanks for the response Zeko! Very informative. As it stands, /t͡ʃ/ occurs before the new reflexes of /ke ki/ from previous Latin /kwe kwi/, in addition it also occurs before /a/. So I imagine it has a stronger functional load than in S-C. /t͡ɕ/ is essentially previous /t͡ʃ/ that had been palatalized a second time.Zekoslav wrote: ↑17 Aug 2018 18:21There's another Slavic language that distinguishes /ʧ/, /ʤ/ and /ʨ/, /ʥ/ - Serbo-Croatian. But, as is the case with Polish, the first pair aren't actually proper /ʧ/, /ʤ/ - they are apical (sometimes even truly retroflex) and slightly labialized. There's also numerous dialects that merge them into proper /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ (I distinguish them improperly since I'm bidialectal), which makes for one of the two greatest difficulties of our otherwise largely phonemic orthography.
It should be known, however, that the distinction has an extremely low functional load in S-C, so if your language is different in that regard, I say yes to the distinction, and to allophonic labialization.
/d͡ʒ/ and /d͡ʑ/ are both a bit rarer, and may be trickier to incorporate. The only word I can think of having /d͡ʒ/ at the moment is lengua -> lend͡ʒa or something.