I needed to write confrontational and put an L in [1]
but it looked odd so I checked my dictionary.
The dictionary showed confront [2]
and confrontation [3] 
but not confrontational.
I think [1] is bad and so I should use [3] and allow the context to provide confrontational rather than confrontation.
When I write eyebrow I think I start the circle in the wrong place [1]
(the arrow shows where I start an I). The correct outline is [2]
I suppose it does not really matter (?) although [1] contains a change of direction of writing which must take a bit longer.
(If I write a circle on its own I always write it anticlockwise — “left motion” — I’ve never been sure of this.)
Now, as for clothes, I find this a bit awkward. The upward curve of cloth [1]
leaves an awkward starting point for the S.
It would either end up a bit skewed [2] 
(more like an X),
or it leaves a little loop [3] 
(an unwanted tiny E).
I write it somewhat compromised [4] 
where the TH is much more like a T.
I read that early on in describing the TH Gregg said that the little TH could be confused with a T but that that did not matter, for often TH & T are not pronounced too differently (which I recognise from Irish speakers). It was very interesting that he gave such deep consideration to such things while developing his system.
Just recently I wondered about using the other TH for cloth [5]
and clothes [6] 
.
Though it’s more distinct it looks odd — and I certainly won’t be doing it.
I'd write "confrontational" like (1), "eyebrow" like (2), and "clothes" like (4) while trying to keep the roundness of the "th".
That''s useful. So my first instinct about the L wasn't so wrong. Thanks.
The Gregg shorthand dictionaries don't give words like "confrontational" and "computational", etc.
"Sensational" is in the dictionary, though.
And if you look at words like "national" and "rational", they also show the model of the ish-l connection.
Thanks Lee. I looked them up. At the time I tried to think of similar words but (as always) my mind goes blank as to what to look for. I think Ill have to improve on the clarity of my SH-L joinings now.
If you have the Gregg SH Manual Simplified, look at Ch.8 #57. Note "nation" and "national" where the L is added to the SH. Also for "L" endings, look at Ch. 10 #78. In Ch.33 #304 we learned the omission of T, as in "act" while Ch.10 #78 shows "actual" includes the T when joined with L.
That's interesting. It had not been brought to my attention that a T is in "actual" (I may have used it but not consciously).
And the "national" there shows a much more pronounced angle. My SH-L tend to be rather smooth. In fact with a start of the L as part of an oval I had imagined that there was no angle between the two.
(By the way, my Simplified manual had slightly different paragraph numbers but I found your references OK.)
The outline for "actual" is a good example of the Gregg shorthand "middle way" between what people say and a standard, generally recognizable form.
Where I live now in central Texas, it's not unusual to hear "achly". But in my central Midwestern US English, I say ak-chooly". And if I'm speaking formally or carefully, I say "ak-tually".
Gregg shorthand forms and outlines aren't based on either logic or phonetics, in a pure sense, but are based on the practicality of a fast way to write.