Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:01:07.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sotho-Nguni Orthography and Tone-Marking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

A. N. Tucker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

FOR years now the question of orthography in the South African Bantu languages has kept the authorities busy. It flares up periodically in different parts of the country, and local committees are called from time to time to deal with the conflagration.

In the past, unfortunately, these committees have too often concerned themselves with the problems of one language only, and apparently ignored both the effect their decisions would have on literature exchange and the attempts of previous committees to solve similar problems in related languages. Thus we have Zulu and Xhosa, very closely related languages, with considerable orthographical differences, while North Sotho and Tswana now differ from each other and from South Sotho, which (perhaps wisely) has set its face against orthographic change since 1906.

Until Dr. Jacob Nhlapo launched his campaign for Southern Bantu linguistic unity, few people had seriously considered the possibility of an orthographic system which would cover both the Nguni and Sotho groups, the feeling being that such unity lay in the realms of wishful thinking in view of the virtual impossibility of achieving unity within the groups.

The present article is an attempt to combine the experience of past efforts into a system that would actually be applicable to these two language groups. The acceptance of such a system would naturally involve great sacrifices of tradition and prestige from both parties. This aspect is not to be ignored, but at the same time can have little connection with the scientific elaboration of an alphabet. Consequently the argument “The Sotho (or the Nguni) would never accept such a solution” must be relegated to the sphere of practical politics.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , February 1949 , pp. 200 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 200 note 1 It is at this point perhaps that the author should offer his own apologies for the same omission. In The Spelling of Transvaal Sesuto only one language was considered, while in the orthography chapter in The Comparative Phonetics of Suto-Chuana no notice whatever was taken of Nguni language problems. That is why the present proposals differ so strongly from those put forward at that time. (Note that Lestrade, in Bantu Studies, 1929, regards total uniformity as temporarily unachievable.)

page 200 note 2 In two aspects concessions have been made to tradition, viz. in the conflict over the letter x as representing a click or as representing the velar fricative, and in the inherent antipathy in certain quarters to phonetic symbols; wherever the latter are suggested, a form of Romanization, with or without diacritics, is given (though not necessarily recommended) as an alternative.

page 200 note 3 It is owing to his collaboration that I have been able to simplify the cumbersome notation of my “Suto-Chuana Phonetics” into the present system, which Mr. Letele himself is now adapting in his forthcoming work on the tonal aspect of Sotho.

page 201 note 1 I prefer Professor Daniel Jones's analysis of the vowels (in his Sechuana Sender) to my own (in Comparative Phonetics of Suto-Ghuana), as being the more etymologically correct. In the same way I prefer the spelling of the United Kikuyu Language Committee to that of Miss Armstrong (in The Phonetics of Kikuyu).

page 202 note 1 The fact that the Nguni mid vowels are on the whole more open (and show more variation) than the Sotho mid vowels is beside the point where orthography is concerned.

page 202 note 2 The term “Sotho” is used here to cover the various languages of the Sotho-Tswana group, though the actual examples, except where otherwise stated, come from South Sotho. The “Nguni” examples come mainly from Xhosa.

page 202 note 3 Note Sotho-Nguni ε > e and o > o before i or u. Note that the Swahili e and 0 are normally between mid and semi-open, and that neither Swahili nor Kikuyu have this type of vowel assimilation.

page 202 note 4 This is the great drawback of Miss Armstrong's system, and of mine (in Comparative Phonetics of Suto-Chuana).

page 203 note 1 This is further illustrated by the fact that many words borrowed direct into Sotho from Nguni are given semi-close rather than close vowels, e.g.

page 203 note 2 An analysis of Mk. vi, 30–44, in Kikuyu and S-Sotho gives the following:

page 203 note 3 Thus—motho, more, mesela, lentsoe, Sesotho, loleme, bobe, ho roma.

page 204 note 1 In this connection note the popular English spellings “Basutoland” and “Kikuyu” and the popular Continental spelling “Suaheli” (where “lax” i is heard as German e).

page 204 note 2 As did Leakey, who consulted Meinhof in Hamburg before drawing up the system now used by the United Kikuyu Language Committee. My only objections to this system are (a) the choice of diacritic, and (b) the fact that it is used on the most common instead of the least common characters.

page 204 note 3 The same type of argument influenced the Committee which recommended s (for S) and š (for ∫) in Tswana-Pedi orthography.

page 206 note 1 In Swahili there is a distinction between syllabic m (< Ur. B. mu-) in words like (coffee-tree), (pumpkin plant), and non-syllabic m (< Ur. B. ni-) in words like mbuni (ostrich), mboga (vegetables). The standard spelling ignores this difference. Doke (in Zulu Phonetics, ch. vi) points out an interesting phonetic distinction between the two kinds of prefixes in Zulu, but this need not affect the spelling except for the tone marking.

page 207 note 1 The letter “h” will then be reserved for aspiration and for those words which have h in all Tswana dialects: see Table IX.

page 207 note 2 Even so, some confusion is caused in schools with the form “tlh” which many wish to write with “thl”. If “thl” is preferred, then logically one should write “ths”, “ths” (or “thš”), and “khg” (see Table IX); though no misunderstanding would arise, such spellings do not represent the pronunciation as satisfactorily as those recommended above, so are not recommended here as alternatives.

page 208 note 1 See Comparative Phonetics of Sitto-Chuana, pp. 39, 59–61.

page 209 note 1 The conflicting uses of “g” and “x” (and “ch”) in the two language groups have formed one of the biggest barriers to a unified spelling system, ranking in importance next to the incompatability of the present vowel systems. It is obvious that “x” is too well established as a click symbol to warrant its use for the velar fricative (as in one N. Sotho system). The obvious Roman alternative is “g”, which is already in use both in Tswana and in Afrikaans. A further suggestion by Letele is that Tswana and N. Sotho speakers should adopt the S. Sotho use of “h” (especially as true h is rare in these languages) and leave “f” for Nguni.

page 209 note 2 There is no need for the special symbol recommended in Comparative Phonetics ofSutoChuana.

page 210 note 1 In fact, this is a return to the state of affairs existing twenty years ago.

page 210 note 2 “y” should not be used for this sound, nor is there any need for the symbol, recom-mended in Comparative Phonetics of Suto-Chuana.

page 210 note 3 There is no need for the symbol recommended in Comparative Phonetics of Sulo-Chuana.

page 211 note 1 If “n” is chosen for the velar nasal (see Table VI), then there would be no need to write “ngh”, one could write “ng” or “ng”.

page 211 note 1 A clumsy imitation of the practice with clicks. In the latter case (see Table VIII), the device is justified as the sound g (and k too) are actually heard in the articulation, but not in.

page 211 note 3 Doke, Zulu Phonetics, p. 93.

page 213 note 1 Plain “ng” if “n” is used for the velar nasal stop.

page 213 note 2 Plain “g” if Tswana and N. Sotho accept “r’ or “h” for the velar fricative.

page 214 note 1 I have used this system for a long time in classes in London, always in the hopes that Professor Beach's own magnum opus on Xhosa Phonetics would make the system public. Mean-while, however, orthographical problems have advanced apace, and I feel that such a contribution to their solution should no longer be kept back. Unfortunately I have been unable to contact the author for formal sanction, but would like this monograph to stand as an acknowledgment to his pioneer work.

page 214 note 2 Also observed by Doke in Zulu. See p. 205 op. cit.

page 214 note 3 Based on Professor D. Jones's Sechuana Reader.

page 215 note 1 It might be argued from Comparative Phonetics of Suto-Chuana that there are only two tonemes, the high falling tone being a member of the high level toneme. This Professor Jones does in his latest work, The Phoneme, its Nature and Use. I prefer to follow Professor Beach's lead, however, in looking for tonemes also among monosyllabic ideophones; here it is obvious that to and twa belong to different tonemes.

page 215 note 2 High level when the word begins a sentence.

page 215 note 3 The final syllable of a Class II word, whether the word is final or not in a sentence, is slightly higher than normal mid tone. In Comparative Phonetics of Suto-Chuana and in Jones's mono-graphs it is recorded as a lowered high tone.

page 216 note 1 Doke was right in criticizing my use of the word “toneme” (Comparative Phonetics of Suto-Chuana, p. 105) to describe what are really tone patterns.

page 216 note 2 Translation: The song, etc., is finished.

page 216 note 3 Jones: (i) pīna (ii) pīs5 (iii) nama (iv) phωlῶ. This allocation of tonemea, however, although actually saving a tone mark in Sotho, would not hold for Nguni, so is not followed up here.

page 217 note 1 From the speech of Mrs. Nontando Preston, nee Jabavu, and Mrs. Louisa Nchude Whyman, née Soga.

In dealing with Nguni tone it is important to note that non-tonemic nasals (as in the prefix in- etc.) form a single tone unit with the preceding vowel if there is one (e.g. in-daba, not i-ndaba), and with the following syllable otherwise (e.g. ndi-). In the prefix um-, on the other hand, the nasal is separate and tonemic (e.g. ‘u-m-suthu).

page 218 note 1 High level when the word begins the sentence.

page 218 note 2 Translation: The frogs, etc., have gone. Note tonemic -'m-.

page 219 note 1 The fact that ‘fu is on a lower pitch than ‘u shows that the intermediate syllable ku is inherently mid in tone. Otherwise the three syllables would have been on the same pitch. This also explains why, in words like Tsele (frog) () and usana (baby) () the stem tone is lower than the prefix tone; a mid tone -li- and -lu- syllable respectively has been elided.

Note that before low stems the prefix ku is always high, and the initial vowel U-, though inherently mid, is invariably attracted to high tone by the non-breathy high prefix ‘ku, e.g. ‘u'kudada. Compare, however, “i'silo (carnivor) () with i'zilo pi. () with breathy prefix.

page 221 note 1 -m- not tonemic here.

page 221 note 2 -m- tonemic here.

page 221 note 3 It is more than probable that the “step down” phenomenon will be a useful criterion for word division in Sotho. In the examples here, words will be tentatively divided in accordance.

page 222 note 1 Not so in Nguni: ‘i'nko's(i) ‘i'ba'bo'nilfe) a- (The chief has seen the people.)'bantu.

page 222 note 2 In Nguni the opposite (or something like it) seems to be the case. a'maqan'd(a) ”abom'vu ()(The eggs are red.) a'maqan'd(a) () (The red eggs.)

page 222 note 3 This recapitulation gives the main members of each toneme in the two language groups, but, for the sake of conciseness, ignores the sub-forms caused by the influence of phones in Nguni.

page 223 note 1 The Tones of Sechuana Nouns, p. 1.

page 223 note 2 In the short passage presented here, not all the sounds occur which need phonetic characters.

page 224 note 1 The outstanding difference between the Nguni 1st and 2nd versions lies in the frequent use of “ngh” in the 2nd; this is because “ng” has been reserved for the velar nasal stop. If, of all the phonetic characters, “n” alone were adopted for this latter sound, the above difference would vanish.

page 224 note 2 One cannot, of course, avoid the fact that both “n” and “r”, if adopted, would occnr rarely in Nguni but frequently in Sotho.