Talk:Hadza language

message: 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)
replies: text: That appears to be something they missed. Tucker & Bryan say they do; they collaborated with Woodburn, who (along with his daughter) are apparently the only non-locals who speak Hadza. (Same for frics.) There should be more stuff coming out later this year that we can cite. I plan on updating the article once that's out. kwami (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sounds

message: 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)
thread_title: What is "Hadzabe"?

message: I've been looking for this paper, but haven't been able to find it, except one reference to it being an unpublished manuscript.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)
thread_title:  Miller (2008) paper 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706040409/http://www.african.gu.se/aa/pdfs/aa04003.pdf to http://www.african.gu.se/aa/pdfs/aa04003.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721180216/http://www.rogerblench.info/Language%20data/Khoesan/Blench%20paper%20Riezlern%202008.pdf to http://www.rogerblench.info/Language%20data/Khoesan/Blench%20paper%20Riezlern%202008.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041030211058/http://www.african.gu.se/maho/eball/samples/sample_w500.html to http://www.african.gu.se/maho/eball/samples/sample_w500.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: More than seven weeks since I raised this issue, no answer yet. Anyone mind if I just remove the entire section? Steinbach (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it's undue in this article, but there's enough reliable source coverage of the theory that we should mention it somewhere. The explanation of the problems with the theory in this section is quite good, so maybe merge it with Click consonant#Click genesis and click loss? Both articles rely too much on the news coverage though. From a quick read of the two papers cited as supporting the theory, both are careful to say "may", and also consider the possibility of parallel evolution. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your answer. You are right that a theory gaining a lot of media attention has by default encyclopaedic value. On the other hand, from a scientific point of view, this is still a fringe theory. Your suggestion to move the section to the click consonant article isn't so bad, especially since this theory is not about the Hadza language per se but about how some of us humans came to speak like that. Steinbach (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight to very speculative speculations 

message: 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)
replies: text: The situation may be shifting. In 2000 all children learned Hadza apart from in the Sukuma area to the west. The situation may be different in 2020. — kwami (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we believe UNESCO instead?  

message: 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]
:Superficially similar, but what happened to the /l/? And it predates Swahili contact. Bleek suggested a Bantu source, but the only things locally that's close is Nyaturu -βĩĩ. Kw'adza (m)bea is as likely. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numeral