Talk:Hehe language
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
.svg){kind=link}
Johnson (2015) includes /ʃ / in her list of Kihehe phonemes. However, she gives no examples of this phoneme anywhere in her paper. She is clearly not a native speaker of the language and appears to have collected only a limited amount of examples. Her table of consonant phonemes is incomplete, omitting t͡ʃ, ʄ, ndʑ, and w (although she mentions t͡ʃ, dʒ and w in the text). She seems unaware that the voiced stops are implosive or that the language has tones. She hears Nyamahanga's ʋ (e.g. in the class 2 prefix) as [v], but also mentions a possible distinction between [w] and [ʍ], for which she gives no examples. At any rate it would seem much safer to rely on Nyamahanga's 198-page work, devoted entirely to phonology, than Johnson's 25 pages, of which only two pages are about phonology. Nyamahanga specifically rejects /ʃ/ as a phoneme, so I think he should be followed. For this reason I have deleted /ʃ/. Kanjuzi (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Status of /w/
[edit ]Johnson (2015) writes: "Kihehe has both [w] and [ʍ], although it is unclear whether they are allophones or actual phonemes. The mother consultant used [ʍ] more frequently than her daughter." – However, it is not clear what she means by [ʍ]. The fricative xw sound described in the article on [ʍ] (Voiceless labial–velar fricative) does not appear to be accurate for Kihehe and is in no way mentioned by Nyamahanga in his much longer dissertation. It appears from Nyamahanga that /w/ is simply the sound [w]. When nasalised it becomes [mb-] not [ng-], for example ku-wiila "to increase", mbwiila "I'll increase"; so it is more of a labial sound than a velar one. For this reason it seems best to put it in the labial column on the table rather than the velar column. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I am not sure about the first part of the info, but I can tell you that I do not recommend switching it in the labial column. If you are going to prove that it may sound nasalized and is heard as as [mb-], then write that in the notes below. Otherwise, most charts are easier to read when shortened and /w/ can also be placed in the velar column. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The problem is in terminology, it seems. Nyamahanga refers to combinations such as bw, kw, etc. as "velarisation", but the article Velarization describes a completely different phenomenon. Perhaps it should be called Labialization or "labio-velarization". As it is, the table is not quite accurate since the first column contains both labial and labio-dental consonants. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Table of consonants
[edit ]@Fdom5997 I have changed the table to correspond more closely to that given by Nyamahanga (page 6 of his thesis on Kihehe phonology). [w] is not a "velar" consonant, of course; it bears no resemblance to [g] and [k]. But there is an article about [w]: Voiced labial–velar approximant supported by lots of references; and this description matches that of Nyamahanga, except that he uses the term "labiovelar" rather than "labial-velar". As for the labio-dental column, we could lump it with the labial column if you like, but it would be necessary to change the heading to "Labial / Labio-dental". Kanjuzi (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC) – I know it looks neater to lump the labial and labio-dental consonants together, but it isn't very accurate. I think it will also be advisable to add a palato-alveolar column as Nyamahanga does. Kanjuzi (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Kanjuzi We do not need to have the table look exactly like it does in the source. No, obviously /w/ is not a "velar" consonant. Yes it is a labiovelar (or labial-velar) consonant, but it is much easier to fill the space with it in the velar column so we do not need to expand the chart and take more space. And it is the exact same thing with the labio-dental consonants, where we lump them under the "labial" column, and the palato-alveolar sounds under the palatal column. And we do not need to change the heading to "Labial / Labio-dental", since most know that the sound is labial to some degree. This is exactly the process that is used throughout most of the language phonology charts across the site. It does not matter how "accurate" it is. Please, let's revert it back to the original before. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- You're right, other "phonology" pages on Wikipedia do seem to lump together labials and labio-dentals, and velars and labial-velars. It certainly looks neater, although it's not entirely satisfactory. At any rate, if lumping together is permitted, to join stops and affricates together into one group as we have done also seems a good idea. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]