You're still just semi-randomly smashing radicals together to make characters. The Chinese did not make characters the way you're doing it. Well, maybe #1 and #3 are self-explanatory, but #2 and #4 need some explanation before we can 'buy' it.
kentaku_sama wrote:Note that I have been practicing and observing the porportions of the kanji on the computer and these look better than the others.
Ehhh... #2 doesn't look right to me at all. And they're all jaggy.
Note that the KUN readings are readings used in japanese words and ON readings can be used to write american and foreign names in kanji.
Some of your on'yomi cannot possibly be on'yomi. As I've already said, on'yomi are derived from Chinese pronunciations of kanji, so they must sound like they came from Chinese. フライド would be a kun'yomi if anything. I've also never seen a two-syllable on'yomi that ends with "su", "zu", or "mu". On'yomi are always one syllable long (note that I'm counting syllables here, not morae, so things like "ai", "un", and "kyuu" count as one syllable), except for two-syllable on'yomi ending with "shi", "chi", "ku", or "tsu". If it's more than one syllable and ends with anything else, it's not an on'yomi.
Frankly, I think it's pretty pointless to invent an on'yomi unless 1) your kanji uses a phonetic element that is the basis of that on'yomi, or 2) you have some understanding of Chinese and can invent a complete etymology of the word/character.
Also, to be honest, nobody is going to care what the on'yomi/kun'yomi are unless the readings explain the kanji itself (as in AJBryant's examples). I could make up a kanji and say the reading is ばば or きり or ドン or whatever... it's just a sound, what makes one sound different from any other, really?
- Kef