Re: your opinion

>Which is fine by itself, but if you have for /I/ before a retroflex: [I] >
>[I\] > [M_x] > [U] (no distinction between /I Y U/ in that position, right?)
>the epenthetic [I\] should probably get dragged along too. Probably only the
>first step of that was conditioned; I can recall reading of a parallel of
>sorts from Norwegian, where [E] > [&] generally before retroflexes, but
>after [l:] >> [r`] and [s\] >> [s`], these new retroflexes do not cause the
>same change anymore. So it seems it was the [r] in the former clusters such
>as [rt rn] that originally triggered [E] > [&], not the retroflex [t` n`]
>etc. that they became.
im not sure why that would drag [i\] along if it never occurs before a retroflex
right?
now im not sure
confuzzled