![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Are you really sure that the Hadza mtDNA is so divergent? The Hadza mtDNA lineage is L2, i.e. a Pygmy lineage. The statement that Hadza make up one of the oldest human groups is misleading. Genetically they are related to Pygmies. So, more strictly speaking, the lineage of the Pygmies and Hadza was the second one that separated from the human DNA tree. 82.100.61.114 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The bilabial click seems to be modally nasal & labialized, rather than glottalized, perhaps an influence of mimesis, but then all labials are allophonically labialized. There's also an epiglottal fricative. But both phonemes are marginal, occuring in only a single known word each, each of which may occur with another phoneme instead (much like pʼ). Not published, though, so can't put in article. kwami 08:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I just took another look at the Sands et al. paper, and they say the aspirated and tenuis clicks don't contrast. Can anyone confirm or refute that? Should they be taken out? WmGB ( talk) 20:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This may be a stupid question, but a quick google did not turn up anything related, so unless I missed a link I don't think so. What exactly is the difference in pronunciation between '-bee' and '-bii', and where would one go to find that out? (If there is a link I missed, it might be that it should be more prominent) Dstar3k ( talk) 04:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
There shouldn't be two links, but maybe it would be helpful to indicate somehow to readers that the Hadzabe are the Hadza people? Please make the change or let me know you won't revert it if I do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for this paper, but haven't been able to find it, except one reference to it being an unpublished manuscript. How did the auther gain access to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caoimhin ceallach ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hadza language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hadza language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
So seemingly it was claimed in 2003 that the first modern humans may have spoken with clicks, just because some of the most divergent people have click languages. As the section rightly points out, there is absolutely no reason to assume that this was the case. This "theory" goes much further than proposed macrofamilies like Austric or Nostratic; indeed, it goes further than even the wildest speculations by Merritt Ruhlen, who thinks all human languages can be linked but at least does not assume they kept their phoneme inventories intact. Now the Nostratic family is already extremely controversial, and for that reason not given too much prominence on articles. I think we are giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Steinbach ( talk) 11:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This article states that most children learn the language as their first language so it is not threatened. The reference in a footnote of this article states that it is endangered and they use that term when most children do not learn the language as their first one. https://www.ethnologue.com/size-and-vitality/hts UNESCO states that this language is not endangered but vulnerable because most children learn it but the use is restricted to certain areas of life, for example to the home. http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/en/atlasmap/language-id-114.html Because the tribe is keen of its traditions and because of the strong use of swahili in Tanzania I suppose that UNESCO is closest to the truth. Should we change the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasselc ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The word "piye", meaning "two", might have been borrowed from the Swahili "pili". The word "pili" is used in abstract counting, in which no nouns are used and no objects referred to. [unsigned]
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Are you really sure that the Hadza mtDNA is so divergent? The Hadza mtDNA lineage is L2, i.e. a Pygmy lineage. The statement that Hadza make up one of the oldest human groups is misleading. Genetically they are related to Pygmies. So, more strictly speaking, the lineage of the Pygmies and Hadza was the second one that separated from the human DNA tree. 82.100.61.114 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The bilabial click seems to be modally nasal & labialized, rather than glottalized, perhaps an influence of mimesis, but then all labials are allophonically labialized. There's also an epiglottal fricative. But both phonemes are marginal, occuring in only a single known word each, each of which may occur with another phoneme instead (much like pʼ). Not published, though, so can't put in article. kwami 08:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I just took another look at the Sands et al. paper, and they say the aspirated and tenuis clicks don't contrast. Can anyone confirm or refute that? Should they be taken out? WmGB ( talk) 20:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This may be a stupid question, but a quick google did not turn up anything related, so unless I missed a link I don't think so. What exactly is the difference in pronunciation between '-bee' and '-bii', and where would one go to find that out? (If there is a link I missed, it might be that it should be more prominent) Dstar3k ( talk) 04:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
There shouldn't be two links, but maybe it would be helpful to indicate somehow to readers that the Hadzabe are the Hadza people? Please make the change or let me know you won't revert it if I do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for this paper, but haven't been able to find it, except one reference to it being an unpublished manuscript. How did the auther gain access to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caoimhin ceallach ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hadza language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hadza language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
So seemingly it was claimed in 2003 that the first modern humans may have spoken with clicks, just because some of the most divergent people have click languages. As the section rightly points out, there is absolutely no reason to assume that this was the case. This "theory" goes much further than proposed macrofamilies like Austric or Nostratic; indeed, it goes further than even the wildest speculations by Merritt Ruhlen, who thinks all human languages can be linked but at least does not assume they kept their phoneme inventories intact. Now the Nostratic family is already extremely controversial, and for that reason not given too much prominence on articles. I think we are giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Steinbach ( talk) 11:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This article states that most children learn the language as their first language so it is not threatened. The reference in a footnote of this article states that it is endangered and they use that term when most children do not learn the language as their first one. https://www.ethnologue.com/size-and-vitality/hts UNESCO states that this language is not endangered but vulnerable because most children learn it but the use is restricted to certain areas of life, for example to the home. http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/en/atlasmap/language-id-114.html Because the tribe is keen of its traditions and because of the strong use of swahili in Tanzania I suppose that UNESCO is closest to the truth. Should we change the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasselc ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The word "piye", meaning "two", might have been borrowed from the Swahili "pili". The word "pili" is used in abstract counting, in which no nouns are used and no objects referred to. [unsigned]