Note to linguists

The point of this note is to explain to linguists the nature of divergences between the data given here vs. elsewhere, also to aid in understanding what claims are being made. To recapitulate the explanation given above, the headword entry is a “revised orthographic” form, which uses no phonetic symbols, adheres to Swahili-inspired East African spelling conventions, and which is mostly consistent with observed Logoori writing practice to the extent that vowel length is recorded, but skipping over writing inconsistencies when it comes to writing [i u] vs [ɪ ʊ]. Actual data are presented in phonetic transcription, using a ‘generalized’ individual-phonemic writing system. Elsewhere (for instance in the grammar) I give narrower transcriptions that reflect properties of individual tokens, which means that the example was said in that form by some individual. Because of optionality, a single word (from the E-language perspective) can have a lot of concrete realizations, even shying away from attempts to transcribe low-level physical differences. The most frequent instantiation of such added possibilities in realization involve tone, especially the question of when the phonological rule of Leftward Spreading applies. In the grammar, transcriptions of tokens reflect the facts of a particular token. In the dictionary, transcriptions abstract away from that level of detail. Tones are transcribed without reflecting the effect of Leftward Spreading, therefore the noun whose headword is ulwaasaya and which has the posited pronunciation [ʊrwáásayá] is actually usually pronounced [ʊrwáá^!sáyá] (but as noted in the entry can have a phonologically distinct variant [ʊrwáá^!sáya]). The primary point of mentioning at all that there is variation in pronunciation is to disabuse non-linguist readers who might have such beliefs of the mistaken idea that there is only one correct and proper form of any word in the language. The secondary point is to expose linguists to some of the reality of the Logoori language, which they probably have not themselves had previously. I believe that presenting a more narrow transcription makes it harder for all parties to discern the similarity in the attested variants, thus all forms of ulwaasaya have two H’s, but there can be variation in whether the second H is assigned to the final vs. not (the grammar explains the nature of the nominal tone system, whereby that is all that one has to say).