Native Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, what do you find worse: a) If foreing learners pronounce kh as X (as in German "auch", Hebrew "Tanach", Arabic "Xaliifa") and th as in English "thick" b) If they pronounce "kh" identically as "k" and "th" identically as "t" ? I believe the first option, albeit weird sounding, is still understandable, while the latter option is worse, as the distinction between pairs of different letters is lost (and as those learners will also pronounce T identically with t, we get 4 disctinct phonemes merged in one in the b-option). But want to know opinions. This decision needs to be taken for an online transcription tool, which is meant to use same system (nothing but the basic alphabet, no diacritics, capitals or other signs) for many languages. This system is using "th" to denote both the English th in "thick" and a sequence of t+h, and likewise uses "kh" to represent both the sequence of k+h and Arabic خ I have chosen to keep the usual transcription "th" "kh" for the south Asian aspirates, but this will inevitably result in some users pronouncing khaanaa as Xaanaa (here X means خ ) and thiik almost as "thick". Is anybody of the opinion that in the context of gross approximation "k" and "t" would be better instead?