Re: your opinion

>
>I gathered you're trying to do this, in essence:
>-1- [i I e] become [i\ I\ @] before a retroflex
>-2- [i\ I\ @] become [M U 7] everywhere
>-1'- [@] becomes [I\] everywhere
>-2'- [I\] becomes [i\] everywhere
>
>But change -2-, which I'd argue to be unconditioned "drift" (ie. once the
>front vowels have developed the backed allophones, the retroflexes aren't
>"needed" any more for the further backing) should mess up either the input
>or output of changes -1'- and -2'-. OK, in theory it's possible that even
>-0'- [n= l=] become [@n @l] everywhere
>occurs after change -2- so the "vowel trajectories" would not strictly cross
>— but in your Big Inventory here, I just don't think an epenthetic vowel
>would take on a quality different from all the phonemic vowels. Altho I can
>see why you wouldn't *like* that; you'd get new intervocalic [k], which
>would mess up your neat "cross-allophonic" stop-system, in part.
>akn [akUn] = /akUn/ not /akn/
>akun [agUn] = /agUn/ not  /akUn/
>agun [aGUn] = /aGUn/ not /agUn/
okay
i think ive got it
and now my head hurts lol
but it seems to me that the only way to avoid messing up my neat :) system
is to either voice it akn [agn=] or devoice the 'n' getting akn [ak_n] ish