|
|
| Line 54: |
Line 54: |
| | || f v || s z || ç || || || h ɦ | | | || f v || s z || ç || || || h ɦ |
| |- | | |- |
| ! ejective/glottalised<ref name="ejective"></ref> | | ! ejective |
| | || fʼ vʼ<br>f͡ʔ v͡ʔ || sʼ zʼ <br>s͡ʔ z͡ʔ || || || || | | | || fʼ vʼ|| sʼ zʼ || || || || |
| |- | | |- |
| ! rowspan=2 | Approximant | | ! rowspan=2 | Approximant |
| Line 64: |
Line 64: |
| | || || l || || ɫ || || | | | || || l || || ɫ || || |
| |} | | |} |
| ====Ejective controversy====
| |
| There is an ongoing debate on whether the doubled consonants of Kimow(''kk'', ''gg'' and so forth) are [[w:Ejective consonant|'''ejective''']] consonants or '''diphthongs with a glottal stop'''. Previous studies have tried to link the two sets of different sounds to dialectical difference between Kimo and Wakki, but no correlation was found between use of glottal diphthongs or ejectives on dialectic differences alone. Subsequent studies on less spoken dialects, such as Kemḥu Kka and Mukku found no correlation either. Thus, the theory that use of ejectives or glottal diphthongs depends on dialect is now generally considered outdated and disproven, though a replacement theory with substantial evidence has yet to be found. Until such a theory is proposed, the linguistic community has agreed that the differences are completely arbitrary and are sometimes up to the speaker.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Vowels=== | | ===Vowels=== |