Robin Baugus

Linguistics 550: Phonetics

Mystery Language Final Report

1. Introduction
The language of Sandawe (ISO 639-3: sad) is a language utilized by approximately 40,000
speakers (as of the year 2000) of Tanzania. It may also be referred to as: Kisandawe, Sandaui,
Sandaweeki, Sandawi, or Sandwe. Speakers of Sandawe's two dialects (Eastern and Western Sandawe)
may be found among all ages and it is furthermore used in all domains of life in the Dodoma Region,
Kondoa District, and between the Bubu and Mponde rivers. Additionally, its speakers retain a positive
attitude towards Sandawe though many find it difficult to write (thereby dropping its L1 literacy rate to
below 1%) and prefer the use of Swahili. (Lewis, Paul, Simons, & Finnig. 2013)
Linguistically, Sandawe falls under the Khoisan language family according to the Ethnologue
(Lewis et al. 2013) but its place in this language family has been debated. Khoisan languages are
distinguished by the inclusion of click consonants, of which some have been adopted by the Bantu
languages of South Africa including Zulu and Xhosa.

Most Khoisan languages are found in

southwestern Africa, with Sandawe being among the few the Tanzanian exceptions (in addition to the
language of Hadza). Other Khoisan languages may be found in South Africa, Botswana, Angola, and
Namibia. (Thompson, 2013)
The Sandawe language operates on a basic tone system utilizing a high and low tone, and is
constructed out of a total of twenty-nine consonants (this is the standard consonant count, however, as I
will discuss below, my observations lead me to establish a consonant count of thirty-three), an
additional fifteen clicks (three distinct clicks further distinguished by aspiration, voicing, and
glottalization), and five vowels. These will all be discussed in greater depth below.
The phonetic inventories which will be established as standard of Sandawe for the purposes
of this paper are those adopted by Helen Eaton in her discussion of the Sandawe language and IPA

system in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association (2006).

2. Charts, Descriptions, and Discrepancies

Consonants
Both the standard consonantal phonemic inventory (excluding clicks) as well as my own
consonant chart for Sandawe can be seen in table 2.1.1 of the index. For comparison, my consonants
are all in the lower half of the appropriate cell and listed in bold typeface. It is easy to notice that my
consonant bank is larger than the standard for this language, containing thirty-one consonants rather
than twenty-nine. The majority of my mistakes, I believe, are the result of hyper correction and
second-guessing in my listening. The result of wanting to hear something and being worried that I
would miss nuance differences between sounds that are otherwise difficult for me to discern as a
native-English speaker who might not otherwise notice these distinctions.
Unlike the standard inventory for Sandawe, I include only a voiced and unvoiced bilabial stop
[p, b] without the voiceless aspirated contrast [p]. In my transcriptions, the unaspirated [p] was
consistently mis-transcribed as [b] with aspirated [p] as a regular [p]. Similarly, I only mentioned an
aspirated voiceless and unaspirated voiced alveolar stop [t, d]. However, I did (incorrectly) find a
distinction between an aspirated alveolar stop and voiceless alveolar stops which had been dentalized.
Within these dentalized

alveolar stops, I also included an aspiration contrast: [t\ , t\ ].

In my

transcriptions, this dentalized [t\ ] would often take the place of the more-appropriate [t]. Other plosives
present are the velar [k, k, ] (which also has a voiceless ejective contrast [k]) and glottal []. I also
included a glottal ejective [] where there was none however I mentioned in my transcription notes
(Transcriptions 0.0.1, gloss 32) that I was particularly unsure of this consonants existence. This
ejective glottalic stop occurred in my transcriptions in place of a click which is reasonable considering
my unfamiliarity with clicks which makes them difficult to recognize and transcribe (discussed further
in the next section).
In addition to these stops, I also included voiced implosives in the bilabial [], alveolar [], and

velar [] positions. I do not maintain that these implosives are incorrectly identified. In the index,
spectrograms 2.1.1-2.1.6 display all those words which I found to include implosives in a word-initial
position. These are glosses be big, be able to, arrow, hill, (Transcriptions 0.0.1, glosses 3, 9,
15, and 25 respectively) stone, mark, and type of tree (transcriptions 0.0.2, glosses 11, 12, and 15
respectively). In each of these spectrograms, I surrounded the evident voicing proceeding the release
burst of the stop with red lines.

In every instance that I indicated an implosive in my own

transcriptions there is clear indication of regular voicing in both the wave form as well as the
spectrogram. While my initial minimal pair of untie and be able to (see Transcriptions 0.0.1,
glosses 7 and 9 in the index) had been used to indicate an implosive contrast, I do recognize that I
misheard my initial stop for untie as the voiced alveolar [d] as opposed to the correct voiceless [t].
Nonetheless, disregarding this misunderstanding, I firmly believe that implosives do exist in Sandawe,
especially in word-initial positions, even if it may not form a contrastive phoneme.
I did not seem to recognize the laminal alveolar lateral affricates [t, d] or the associated
voiceless ejective [t]. Nor did I notice the aspirated contrast of the voiceless post-alveolar affricate
[ ], though I did recognize both regular voiced and voiceless consonants in this position [, ].
Of the ejectives, other than the above mentioned voiceless laminal alveolar lateral, I chose a
different voiceless apical alveolar ejective [t] than the standard [].

In my transcriptions, the

aspirated [t] consistently replaced [].

In addition to the voiced bilabial, and voiced apical alveolar nasals [m, n], I also included the
voiced velaric nasal []. Unlike most of the other mistakes, I am particularly unsure whether this
inclusion in my inventory (and subsequent exclusion in the standard inventory) is wrong. I have
found one other consonant chart for Sandawe which includes this nasal (Steeman, 2011, p.22) and it
should be noted that most other consonant charts available for this language (including, as mentioned
above, the one used here as the standard) are all compiled by the same individual, Helen Eaton.
None-the-less it should also be noted that Steeman's chart does not utilize traditional IPA characters

such as the use of [y] to indicate the palatal approximate [j], [, dz] to represent the voiceless postalveolar affricates [, ], and his inclusion of alveolar liquid [r], which neither Eaton nor myself found
present. These points must throw into question the validity of Steeman's chart and additional research.
In reviewing my transcriptions (Transcriptions 0.0.1, glosses 33, 34, 35, 36, and 41) and comparing
these transcriptions with those supplied by Eaton, I find that every instance of my inclusion of the
velaric nasal [] is consistently preceded by a nasalized vowel, which may explain why Steeman, as
well as myself, felt the need to include this particular consonant in our charts, having assimilated the
sound of the nasalized vowel to the common nasal ending [].

Eaton, herself, also mentions,

Sometimes a word-final nasal vowel is heard with a following...[]. (Eaton, 2006) However, it
should also be noted that Eaton's transcription of the gloss light (Transcriptions 0.0.1, gloss 1) clearly
includes a velaric nasal which was not included in her provided consonant chart. For this reason in
particular, I remain unconvinced that my inclusion of this consonant is incorrect.
Together with the standard, I included voiceless labio-dental [f], apical alveolar [s], laminal
alveolar lateral [], and glottal [h] fricatives. I did insert a labial-velar [] and epiglottal [] fricatives,
but did not include the uvular fricative []. I believe that my epiglottal fricative was a mistaken hearing
of the uvular fricative present. My use of the labial-velar [] took place where an aspirated, labialized
velar stop existed [k]. The velarization and aspiration (which naturally produces more airflow and
might have led me to confuse with a fricative) of the stop might be the reason for my inclusion of the
[]. The word in question is gloss number 3, return, of the tones table (Transcriptions 0.0.3). My
transcription for this word was k} but the correct transcription is realized as k.
My inventory also includes post-alveolar [j] and labial-velar [w] fricatives which can also be
found in the standard.
There were two distinct instances where the consonants I listed contrasted in voicing with the
same consonants of the standard consonant index. These would be the alveolar tap or flap [] (listed in
the standard as voiceless, whereas I listed it as voiced), and the laminal alveolar lateral approximant [l]

(listed in the standard as voiced and in my inventory as voiceless). In established IPA charts, both the
flap [] and approximant [l] are identified as voiced consonants. I believe my mistake with the
approximant [l] was a genuine mistake as I was having a difficult time organizing my original
consonant table and may have accidentally placed the consonant into the wrong column. However, I
do not feel that my identification of the flap [] as voiced was a similar error.
I am more inclined to believe that a flap may be non-constrastively devoiced. if it is not
consistently voiced. Only three words of the available data set included the flap, which makes deciding
for certain the nature of its use complicated. The spectrograms for these words [f] lie, [t]
type of tree, and [du] chin are listed in the appendix as spectrograms 2.1.7, 2.1.8, and 2.1.9
respectively, with the location of the flap distinguished by red lines. While the voicing bar at the
bottom of these spectrograms does seem to fade a slightly where the flap is present, it does not seem to
vanish as it does in the place of voiceless consonants, such as the [t] of t. I believe the fade of
the voicing bar is more directly related to the nature of the articulatory process involved in the creation
of a flap than in its actual devoicing as indicated by the standard chart. Furthermore, being that a
flap is considered a voiced consonant by international IPA standards, flaps would therefore need to
include the devoicing diacritic for the use of transcriptions to indicate a nonstandard voiceless quality
[], which does not appear in any of the provided correct transcriptions (Transcriptions 0.0.1, gloss 5,
13 and Transcriptions 0.0.2, gloss 17).
My finalized Sandawe consonant inventory is displayed in Table 2.1.2. It takes into account all
of the discrepancies and values discussed above and totals thirty-three consonants. In relation to the
standard it differs in the following ways: I have included all my established implosives [, , ],
relocated the flap [] to the voiced position, and left in the velaric nasal from my own chart [].
Excluding those common mistakes I made discussed above, I will now discuss other consistent
consonantal errors made in the course of my transcriptions. In many instances where the the gloss
began with a plosive, I chose the voiced consonant in place of the voiceless though I consistently

chose a consonant produced the same place of articulation.

Some examples include untie

(Transcriptions 0.0.1, gloss 7: d versus t), put (Transcriptions 0.0.1, gloss 23, versus
k), and trap (Transcriptions 0.0.2, gloss 1, dne versus tn). In glosses door and take (pl.
object) I replaced the laminal alveolar lateral [t] with the velar [k] in both the ejective and regular
state. (Transcriptions 0.0.1, glosses 14 k} versus t and 16 k versus t). Furthermore, I
consistently replaced the use of post-alveolar affricates [, ] with an aspirated apical alveolar [t].
Clicks
The standard inventory of Sandawe clicks is listed in table 2.2.1 of the index with my
comparison in table 2.2.2. In my listening, I listed only seven clicks total. I did include dental as well
as apical post-alveolar voiceless unaspirated and voiceless aspirated clicks [, , , ] in addition to a
voiceless unaspirated laminal lateral click []. However, I also included bilabial [] (which often took
the place of the dental [] in my transcriptions), and palatoalveolar [] (generally taking the place of the
post-alveolar apical [!]) clicks which are not actually present in the language. The clicks I failed to
recognize were the following: the dental, apical post-alveolar, and laminal lateral voiced [-, -, -], voiced
nasalized [, , ], and post glottalized [, , ]. There was also a laminal lateral []. I believe that
the sum of my mistakes regarding the Sandawe click system are the result of my being a native-English
speaker without these phonemes as a part of my language, making distinguishing between clicks
particularly difficult.
Often, I would transcribe the ejective velar [k] in place of the laminal lateral [] click. This
same click [] was also often confused with the post-alveolar apical [!] in my transcriptions. My sole
use of the ejective glottal stop [] was also in the place of a click: the dental [].
Due to my inexperience with clicks and high probability that my transcriptions were severely
hindered by this inexperience, I am more comfortable accepting Eaton's standard (Table 2.2.1) as
correct without input or change from my own transcriptions.

Vowels
The Sandawe vowels are visible in diagram 2.3.1 and the comparison of the vowels I
established can be found with diagram 2.3.2 where my vowels are set apart by smaller type and red
circles.
In my transcriptions the vowels I established totaled to six, of which four (the high front
unrounded [i], tense high back rounded [u], tense mid front unrounded [e], and tense mid back rounded
[o]), were the same. In place of the low unround [a] (shown in the standard as being moved further
back to a more mid vowel position), I utilized the lower, central, rounded []. There were many
instances (for some examples, see Transcriptions 0.0.1, glosses 4, 5, 6, 11, and 12) wherein
disregarding transcriptions of vowel length or stress, this switching of vowels was the only error and in
most all other cases where [a] was present, my transcriptions replaced it with the []. My use of the
vowel [] fits more readily into the location of [a] in the standard vowel chart for Sandawe, but was
however fronted and lowered in my own vowel measurements, closer to where [a] traditionally appears
on IPA charts. This may be the result of measurement or averaging error in my vowel measurements
from the samples. I also included a significantly lowered, lax central mid vowel [] which may easily
be the result of hyper correction in my transcription process, especially considering that my uses of the
vowel [] occurred in place of the correct [a] (for some examples, see Transcriptions 0.0.1, gloss 15
ni versus dn, Transcriptions 0.0.2, gloss 6 di} versus t, and Transcriptions 0.0.3,
gloss 3 k} versus k). I found no diphthongs and none were listed in any of the transcriptions
provided.
One notable feature of the standard is the slight lowering of the vowels [i, e, u, o], of which, the
higher front vowels [i, e] are moved slightly back, and the higher back vowels [u, o] slightly forward,
bringing the whole chart in slightly towards the center. My own measurements pushed most the vowels
towards the extremities of the chart. Again, this is all most likely the result of poor measurements.
As with the clicks, I am more comfortable accepting the vowel chart provided by Eaton (Table

2.3.1) as the standard chart for vowels without influence from my own vowel chart. While I remain a
little unsure about the use of the vowel [a], I recognize that my measurements are highly subject to
error, especially with the realization that my measurements of [] placed it nearly where [a]
traditionally appears in common IPA charts.
While I indicated long, short, and mid-length vowels, Sandawe makes use of only long and
short vowels, though indications of a vowel-length contrast are not wholly present. In all available
glosses (Transcriptions 0.0.1, 0.0.2, and 0.0.3) no minimal pair is present wherein vowel length is the
only differentiating factor. When completing my own transcriptions, I thought such a minimal pair
existed in glosses other and count (Transcriptions 0.0.2, glosses 2 and 7) which I had initially
transcribed as d and de. These transcriptions differed only slightly from the given transcriptions
(t and t). While my initial transcriptions were exactly the same with the exception of vowellength, the given transcriptions also include tonal contrast which may impact the meaning of the word
in addition to or independently from vowel length.
In many instances, I correctly identified long vowels. For shorter vowels, the transcriptions
given did not make any distinction and so many of my transcriptions include diacritics for shortened or
mid-length vowels which are not otherwise utilized by Eaton. As discussed, the mid-length distinction
was incorrect because the language contains only short and long vowels. As such, in identifying long
vowels with the necessary diacritic, all remaining vowels can be assumed to be short with any
accompanying diacritic being superfluous.
I believe that the possibility of a vowel-length contrast in Sandawe is very real, but do not have
enough data to confirm its presence. In any instance where glosses are similarly transcribed, there is
usually an accompanying tonal difference which eliminates the ability to fully establish an existing
vowel-length contrast.
In observing the transcriptions provided for the words, there are some things that I have noticed.
All nasalized vowels are lengthened while oral vowels may be either short or long. Nasalization of a

vowel seems rather sporadic, though Eaton proposes it occurs in oral vowels followed by a glottalized
click. Furthermore, devoicing of a vowel is present in only two of the glosses provided, still/not yet,
and chin (Transcriptions 0.0.2, glosses 16 and 17: please note that these files were not originally
provided for transcription so there is no transcription of my own to compare). With only two examples
of a devoiced vowel predictability is understandably difficult, however Eaton explains that devoicing
occurs with vowels in the word-final position excepting situations wherein they are proceeded by
consonant clusters. She also claims that they should be low toned high vowels, however in both
transcriptions (i and du) the only [i] is high, though it is not marked as low toned and [u] is a
low vowel, also lacking a low-tone diacritic. (Eaton, 2006)
Tones
Sandawe makes use of a tone system less complex than that of such languages as Chinese,
utilizing only a high and low tone with a mid tone which may be used to indicated a down stepped
high. (Eaton, 2006) Of the seventy-seven phonetic environments surrounding the various vowels in the
data set, twenty-two of them contained a high tone and three of these phonetic environments were
repeated twice each, giving high tones a raise of twenty-eight out of eighty-three phonetic
environments. This is rather convincing evidence that a high town is the most common tone present in
Sandawe. There are rising and falling tones indicated in the transcriptions, which will be discussed in
further detail below.
As with the vowels, it is difficult to fully identify lexical tone contrasts. Many glosses which
are similar phonetically and vary in tone also carry a vowel length contrast as well. Additional work by
Eaton and her colleagues introduces the possibility of grammatical tone usage, which I would not have
been able to derive merely from individual words. (Hunziker, Hunziker, & Eaton, 2008) However, the
following tonal features can be seen upon closer analysis:
One of the most common tonal patterns is a high tone on the first vowel followed by a low tone
on the second vowel.

This can be seen in many of the words provided in the transcriptions

(Transcriptions 0.0.1, glosses 2-6, 22, 26, 28, and 29 provide some examples). While the data may not
be conclusive, it is interesting to also note that vowels [a] and [e] both are realized with a high tone in
the the two instances where they are separated only by an apical alveolar nasal [n]. To take this one
step further, in the data set provided, all of the vowels following the apical alveolar nasal [n] are
marked with a high tone again, the data may not be conclusive in this case.
Regarding moving tone patterns, when analyzed, all falling tones occur in conjunction with a
word-final vowel of either short or long length and all rising tones occurred with only long vowels of
any phonetic environment. In these instances, the data appears to be conclusive enough to allow for
these to be realized as tonal rules in Sandawe. As far as frequency, in this data set rising tones are the
second most common tone present with twenty-two tones of the seventy-seven (or eighty-three when
including those phonetic environments which occur more than once with high tones).
In general, my tone analysis during initial transcriptions were poorly done, at best. I believe a
lot of this is the result of being a native speaker of a language which does not utilize lexical tone. As a
result, I am more disposed to and can more easily recognize tones carried throughout and in the context
of a statement than those tones carried throughout a single word to indicate lexical meaning. Given
small phrases, I believe that I would have easily recognized the use of grammatical tone.

3. Comparison
Introduction to Hebrew
The Hebrew language (ISO 639-3: heb) is spoken by approximately 4,850,000 people in Israel
(where it is a national language) and an additional 452,770 people in other countries (totaling a worldwide speaking population of 5,302,770). Other names for Hebrew include: Israeli and Ivrit (which is
the name of the language in Hebrew) and it is a language which utilizes gendered and pluralized forms
of words. While the writing system and a majority of the pronunciations for vowels and consonants are
taken directly from the Hebrew as found in the Hebrew Bible, despite common misconception, by-andlarge modern Hebrew grammar is not directly related to Biblical or otherwise Ancient Hebrew,

however, modern dialects do exist. Dialects include: Oriental Hebrew (also known as Arabized or
Yeminite Hebrew), Standard Hebrew (classified as Europeanized Hebrew or General Israeli), as well
as a variety of different dialects influenced by linguistic evolution across the globe. Hebrew is most
commonly spoken in Israel but is also found to have a large population of speakers in such countries as:
Australia, Canada, Germany, Palestine, the United States, and the United Kingdom among others.
For many it is an L1 language, however many Israelis who now utilize Hebrew as their L1 originally
learned it as an L2. All Israelis know Hebrew in either an L1 or L2 capacity, and as a national language
commonly employed as an L1, Hebrew is used in all domains of life. (Lewis et al. 2013)
Historically speaking, the use of Hebrew as an everyday language rather than a language
reserved for worship in the Jewish tradition began to fade in 586 B.C.E. with the conquest of the
Babylonians. (Thompson, 2013) It was later revived as a spoken language, a change which is largely
accredited to the efforts of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda in the late 19 th to early 20th century. The revival of the
Hebrew language may also be considered to have played a role in the establishment of the Israeli state
by providing a nationalistic element which Zionists could adhere to. (Zuckerman, 2009)
Hebrew is considered an Afro-Asiatic language. Afro-Asiatic languages are divided into six
branches: Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, Omotic, and Semitic (which is the branch Hebrew falls
under). Afro-Asiatic languages were formerly known as Hamito-Semitic languages and are most
commonly found in Northern Africa. The size of the language family is such that Afro-Asiatic
languages have also spread through the Arabian Peninsula and into the Middle East. There are seventyseven Semetic languages, including Hebrew, the most prevalent of which is Arabic with approximately
206 million speakers. Hebrew falls third behind Amharic (17.5 million speakers). While not all AfroAsiatic languages may share the same phonological characteristics, some common features are: a six
vowel system consisting /a/, /i/, /u/, alongside lengthened versions /aa/, /ii/, and /uu/. Most utilize
pharyngeal fricatives, glottal stops, and semivowels /w/ and /j/ as consonants. Some may include a
three-way contrast between voiced, voiceless, and emphatic consonants (those which may be

velarized, glottalized, pharyngealized, ejective, or implosive). (Thompson, 2013)

The consonant inventory of Hebrew totals twenty to twenty-two consonants, depending on the
dialect being spoken. There are five vowels utilized by the language and some indication of lexical
stress.
The phonetic inventories which will be established as standard of Hebrew for the purposes of
this paper are those adopted by Asher Laufer in his discussion of Hebrew published with the Phonetics
Laboratory and Hebrew Language Department at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. (1999).
Hebrew Consonants and Comparison to Sandawe
Hebrew employs the use of twenty to twenty-two consonants which can be seen in Table 3.2.1
of the appendix. It includes bilabial [p, b], alveolar [t, d], velar [k, g], and glottal [] oral stops as well
as their bilabial [m] and alveolar [n] nasal counterparts. Two trills are utilized, the alveolar [r] and
uvular []. The remaining consonants consist of labio-dental [f, v], alveolar [s, z], post-alveolar [, ],
and glottal [h] fricatives, the palatal approximant [j], and the lateral approximant [l]. Additionally, the
pharyngeal fricative [] and approximant [] are employed by the Oriental dialect.
It is interesting to note that Laufer places the uvular [] in the trill category and the pharyngeal
[] as an approximant, as these are both more traditionally seen by the standard IPA chart as fricatives.
Furthermore, in the course of my Hebrew learning I have never employed the use of a trill in Hebrew
(nor the pharyngeal [] or approximant [], however I am not a speaker of the Oriental dialect). I
recognize that this may be the result of my learning Hebrew, not as a language to be spoken in every
day conversation, but as a language used in prayer and from individuals who have learned Hebrew in
the same context as a result the language may have been simplified as many native English speakers
can not produce the alveolar trill. In a brief discussion with University of Washington professor, Gary
Martin (Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations), he mentioned that many native speakers of Hebrew
utilize the trill where most individuals like myself have replaced it with the alveolar approximant []
and that the trill may be moved back towards the glottis by these native speakers, explaining my initial

confusion over the movement of the uvular fricative [] to the trill position. (Martin, G. Personal
communication, June 5, 2013). While not included in his consonant chart, Laufer also indicates a
distinction, indicating that the use of the trill [r] is more often found in the Oriental dialect whereas
many non-Oriental speakers replace it with the approximant. (Laufer, 1999)
A chart providing the comparison of Hebrew consonants to Sandawe consonants can be found
in the appendix as Table 3.2.2. For the purposes of this table, I included all of those consonants
established in my finalized consonant inventory (Table 2.1.2), Hebrew consonants are listed in the
lower half of the appropriate cells and are in bold typeface.
The larger Sandawe consonantal inventory includes most of those consonants also found in
Hebrew. Consonants shared by both languages include the bilabial [p, b], alveolar [t, d], velar [k, g],
and glottal [] stops as well as their nasal counterparts, the bilabial [m] and alveolar [n]. Sandawe also
shares three of Hebrew's voiceless fricatives, the labio-dental [f], alveolar [s], and glottal [h]. The last
consonants shared by both languages are the laminal lateral alveolar approximant [l] and palatal
approximant [j].
Consonants found in Sandawe and not Hebrew totals to nineteen, most of which are made of
distinct classes. For instance, Hebrew contains no aspirated contrasts in plosives while Sandawe makes
use of three [p, t, k]. The same is true of ejectives, where Sandawe has apical alveolar [], laminal
alveolar lateral [t] and a velar [k] ejectives, Hebrew has none at all. Affricates (Sandawe's [t, d, ,
, ]), implosives ([, , ],) and the flap ([]) are also classes not found in Hebrew's phonetic
inventory. Hebrew makes no use of any labial-velar consonant where Sandawe has the approximant
[w], nor does it utilize the velar nasal [], or laminal alveolar lateral []. It does, as discussed above,
employ the uvular [], but as a trill whereas Sandawe maintains its traditional role as a fricative.
By comparison, only seven of Hebrew's sounds cannot be found in Sandawe including the
apical alveolar trill [r] and pharyngeal approximant []. Hebrew makes use of voiced fricatives [v, z, ]
as well as two voiceless fricatives that Sandawe does not [, ].

Hebrew Vowels and Comparison to Sandawe

Hebrew shares the same five-vowel system as Sandawe. The standard vowel chart for Hebrew
can be seen in table 3.3.1 of the appendix with the compared vowels in Table 3.3.2. Hebrew vowels in
the compared chart are encircled in red and are slightly smaller than their Sandawe counterparts.
As is evident by the chart, Hebrew vowels are largely pushed towards the extremities of the
vowel chart, not pulled towards the center as in Sandawe. There is one similar movement of a vowel in
both Sandawe and Hebrew and that is the backing of the low front [a] towards the center of the chart.
The structure of Hebrew words are largely based on three consonant roots which carry an
idiomatic meaning (for example, the root with letters Gimel, Dalet, Lamed the sounds of which
would be realized as consonants g, d, l carries the overarching meaning of great or big) and are
altered by the addition of vowels and or consonants which provide the specific lexical meaning of the
final word. This particular consonant root will be used below to illustrate the the effects of stress, but
will also involve the addition of consonants and vowels.
Unlike Sandawe, Hebrew does not make use of any vowel-length contrasts though some vowels
may be reduced dependent upon the stress pattern of the word in question. Specific examples will be
discussed below.
Other Linguistic Features Compared
While Sandawe employs tonal contrasts in either a lexical and/or grammatical fashion, Hebrew
does not use tone at all. However, unlike in Sandawe, certain stress patterns can be employed to
distinguish lexical meaning among words in Hebrew. An example provided by Laufer is the following:
bere which carries the meaning knee and bere meaning he blessed. (Laufer, 1999)
Furthermore, as briefly mentioned above, the stress patterns of a word may affect the vowels
realized in that word. One example is that the Hebrew vowel qamats (often realized as [a]) of an open
syllable may be reduced when the syllable is not next to the stressed syllable. The example provided is
the following: adol meaning big (m.) and edola meaning big (f.) As this example also

illustrates, the addition of suffixes and movement of the stress does more than alter the realization of
the vowel, it may also lexically alter the meaning of the word to fit with gendered or pluralized
paradigms. (Gonen, 2009)
Phonological Phenomena
Hebrew makes use of a select set of allophones including /v/ [b, v], /f/ [p, f]. In both of these
instances, the phoneme is represented by a single Hebrew letter and the allophones are determined by
the use of a dagesh, a small dot placed in the center of the letter which determines the allophone used.
Being that this concept is a little abstract in words, I included an illustration using Hebrew letters in
question: the allophones would be represented as / ,
/ [, ] and / ,
/ [,] . In these instances, the
voiceless bilabial [p] is paired with the voiced fricative [v], and the voiceless fricative [f] is paired with
the voiced bilabial [b]. Both of these pairings follow the same phonological rules wherein the voiceless
allophone is realized as its voiced phoneme at the beginning of a word (with the main exception being
those words wherein the last word ended in a vowel or quiescent letter so there is no pause between the
two words), and at the beginning of a syllable if the previous syllable is closed. These phonological
rules also apply to another set of allophones, // [k, ], despite the fact that these allophones do not
follow the same voiced/voiceless contrast of those above. (Wood and Lanchester, 1913) Sandawe
makes use of one similar phonological rule with its ejectives [, t, k]. Each of these also occur in
syllable-initial positions including word-initial and -medial positions. (Hunziker et al. 2008)
In Hebrew, bilabial stops are never found as a word-final consonant while most other
consonants may take this position. In Sandawe, a review of the transcriptions indicates that, by
comparison, relatively few consonants may take word-final position (the nasals [m, n, possibly ] and
glottal []) as most words end with the use of a vowel. Both languages make use of a CVCV pattern in
their word structure with consonant clusters being allowed in restrictive cases (the use of the glottal [],
nasals [m, n], or the closing of a syllable).

4. Conclusion
The Sandawe language is a unique language in that it has maintained those traits which mark it
as a member of its language family despite the geographical distance between the majority of most
Khoisan languages. It makes extensive use of a variety of phonetic aspects to increase the diversity of
its available phonetic inventory, including distinctions defined by: aspiration, ejectives, voicing,
nasalization, and even glottalization. The rather large inventory of consonants available are paired with
what would seem to be a small supply of vowels, yet distinctions in tone and vowel length enable
further linguistic possibilities and lexical contrasts.
In comparison, Hebrew attains diversity with very little use of phonetic aspects or tones, and
furthermore vowel length is not utilized to nearly the same extant as their Sandawe counterparts.
Rather, lexical contrasts are achieved by means of a more advanced stress system which makes use of
the smaller phonetic inventory (many of which are also found in Sandawe) and the same five vowels.
Some phonological similarities exists between both languages, but by in large they remain quite
distinct.
Possibly the most difficult aspects of the project would be transcription, which in general, is not
one of my strong suits. Despite the difficulty in finding additional information about my chosen
language of Hebrew, I did find this process enjoyable as I have only ever studied Hebrew in a limited
context which now required me to apply the generalities I have learned in the past to the specifics I
discovered in the completion of this paper. It was particularly difficult to establish phonological rules
for my languages, so while the revised first half of the paper took the most time to write, the latter half
of the paper certainly took the most time to research and later construct for lack of reputable sources.
Overall, this has been one of the most difficult projects of my undergraduate career. This might
be attributed to the fact that this is the only 500-level class I have taken, but it remains a valuable
learning experience.

Appendix
Transcriptions 0.0.1

Transcriptions 0.0.2

*These words were not originally provided in my files to be transcribed

Transcriptions 0.0.3

Table 2.1.1
Sandawe Consonants (Compared)
Alveolar
LabioAlveolar lateral
PostVelar/ LabialBilabial Dental Dental (apical) (laminal) Alveolar Uvular velar Glottal Epiglottal
Plosive

p p
p

b
b

t t
t

t, t,

d
d

Affricate

Ejective

k k g
k k g

k
k

Implosive
Nasal

m
m

n
n

Tap

Fricative

f
f

s
s

Approximant

h
h

j
j

w
w

Please note that consonants listed to the left of the column are voiceless, those listed to the right are voiced
My consonants are listed in bold typeface in the lower half of each cell

Table 2.1.2
Sandawe Consonants (Finalized)

Plosive

LabioBilabial Dental

Alveolar
(apical)

p p

t t

Alveolar
lateral
PostVelar/ Labial(laminal) Alveolar Uvular velar Glottal

Affricate

Ejective
Implosive
Nasal

Approximant

Tap
Fricative

k k g

h
w

Please note that consonants listed to the left of the column are voiceless, those listed to the right are voiced

Spectrogram 2.1.1
b/ be big

Spectrogram 2.1.2
d/ be able to

Spectrogram 2.1.3
dn/n arrow

Spectrogram 2.1.4
w/w hill

Spectrogram 2.1.5

Spectrogram 2.1.5

d/ stone

d/ mark

Spectrogram 2.1.6
d / type of tree

Spectrogram 2.1.7
f lie

Spectrogram 2.1.8
t type of tree

Spectrogram 2.1.9
du chin

Table 2.2.1
Sandawe Clicks (Standard)
Dental
Post-Alveolar

Lateral (laminal)

Voiceless Unaspirated

Voiceless Aspirated

Voiced

Voiced Nasalized

(Post) glottalized

Table 2.2.2
Bilabial
Voiceless
Unaspirated

Sandawe Clicks (Compared)

Dental
Palatoalveolar

Post-Alveolar
(apical)

Lateral
(laminal)

Voiceless
Aspirated

Voiced

Voiced
Nazalized

(Post)
Glottalized

My clicks are listed in bold typeface in the lower half of each cell

Diagram 2.3.1
Sandawe Vowels (Standard)

Diagram 2.3.2
Sandawe Vowels (Compared)

My vowels have been circled in red

Table 3.2.1
Hebrew Consonants (Standard)
LabioPostBilabial Dental Alveolar Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal
Plosive

Nasal

r
f

v s

Approximant
Lateral
Approximant

Trill
Fricative

Please note that consonants listed to the left of the column are voiceless, those listed to the right are voiced
Phonemes // and // occur only in the Oriental pronunciation

Table 3.2.2
Hebrew and Sandawe Consonants (compared)
Alveolar
Labio- Alveolar lateral
PostBilabial Dental (apical) (laminal) Alveolar Palatal Velar

Plosive

p p b
p
b

t t
t

d
d

Affricate

k k g
k
g
t

Ejective

Labial
Uvular - velar Pharyngeal Glottal

Implosive

Nasal

m
m

n
n

Trill

r
Tap
Fricative
Approximant

f
f

s
v s

l
l

h
h

j
j

Please note that consonants listed to the left of the column are voiceless, those listed to the right are voiced.
Hebrew consonants are listed in bold typeface in the lower half of each cell.

Table 3.3.1
Hebrew Vowels (Standard)

Table 3.3.2
Hebrew and Sandawe Vowels (Compared)

Hebrew vowels have been circled in red

Sources

Eaton, H. (2006). Illustrations of the IPA: Sandawe. Journal of the International Phonetic
Association, 36(2), 235-242
Gonen, E. (2009). Researching spoken Hebrew and its implications for teaching Hebrew as a
second language. In Issues in the acquisition and teaching of Hebrew. University Press of
Maryland: Bethesda, Maryland.
Hunziker, D., Hunziker, E., & Eaton, H. (2008). A Description of the phonology of the
Sandawe language. SIL International: SIL Electronic Working Papers.
Laufer, A. (1999). Hebrew. The Phonetics Laboratory, Hebrew Language Department, the
Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel.
Lewis, P., Simons, G., & Fennig, C. (eds.). 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World,
Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version:
http://www.ethnologue.com.
Steeman, S. (2011). A Grammar of Sandawe: A Khoisan language of Tanzania. 22. Retrieved
from https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/18429/A_Grammar_of_SandaweSander_Steeman-Full_Text.pdf?sequence=2
Thompson, I. (2013). AWL: About world languages. Retrieved from
http://aboutworldlanguages.com/
Wood, C., & Lanchester, H. (1913). A Hebrew grammar. (19). New York: E.P. Dutton and Co.
Zuckerman, G. (2009). Hybridity versus revivability: Multiple causation, forms and patterns.
The University of Australia, Queensland. Retrieved from
http://www.zuckermann.org/pdf/Hybridity_versus_Revivability.pdf