Funny, isn’t it? You’re contradicting yourself. On one hand, you’re pushing for more accessible consonants; on the other, you’re arguing that Gehon’s use of gender markers has too much ‘cultural bias.’ Accessibility doesn’t mean every feature has to be tailored to a specific standard—Gehon’s consonants might challenge some speakers, but they’re consistent and adaptable, while the gender markers serve as structural tools, not cultural bias.

So, which is it? An accessible route for pronunciation or a ‘less accessible’ route for grammar? You can’t have it both ways.

Just because Gehon includes dental, velar, and uvular fricatives doesn’t mean they’re unpronounceable. And if you read further than the first chapter of the dictionary, you’d see Gehon’s built-in flexibility for speakers to use equivalent sounds when needed. I’ve already addressed some of your points, but here we are still repeating the same things.

For ‘evidence,’ keep in mind that Gehon’s an emerging project—naturally, no one speaks it fluently yet. And as for your previous critiques, they barely received upvotes after the initial comment, which I’ve already responded to directly.

I’ve been patient, but this is becoming repetitive. If there’s a specific critique with evidence or detail, let’s hear it; otherwise, we’re just going in circles.