Cjp:sAjp:]

8. [bAISAjPlbP1?]

9. [ri:d3 i tf ikv ? ] 10. [bAta tfI kAb^'?]

11= [j f: tT iketu:lu:]

14. [bAtAtf ike:be* ?]

15= [j£?: tj iko:tu:lu:]

20. [bAi tf ik$b£'?]

The above transcription reveals the following information: that (orthographic) ’a' has two surface realizations [g:] and [a]; that ’e ’ surfaces both as [e:] and [e]; that Tu r surfaces both as [i;] and [i];

and that 1o ’ surfaces as [o:]„

A careful examination of these sentences reveals the following im­

portant facts about the nature and number of these vowels. We see that [b:] as in ya 'he1 in examples 6, 7, 11 and 15, and as in ya in the words saya rto b u y ’, rijiya ’well’; and [a]as in saye ba ta cika, bai;

and [l] as in bai rijiya (the ’i 1preceding ya) and ciko are not phon­

etically determined variants and as a result do not surface differently despite the differences of their environments. What this means is that the environments in which these vowels occur neither change the quality nor the quantity of these vowels so that fe:] , [a] , [i] are not allophones of /a/, /a/, /i/ respectively but are simply distinct phonemes.

Hodge and Unar (1963 in Sloat, Taylor and Hoard (1978:137)) recognize the following surface representations of Hausa vowels: [i], [l], [e],

[a], fe] , [o], [u], [u]. We find that the vowels [i] , [e], [a] , [o] , [u] as in [ypwa] 'many', [sucQJ 'blue', [dabbobi] 'animals’ and [dure]

correspond exactly to the vowels commonly referred to as long vowels. On the other hand their vowels [i] , [S’] and [u] as in [msgrna] ’speech’ ,

[girma] 'largeness', [kasuwaj 'market' correspond to the short vowels. 1 1. These vowels are given in the authors' transcription. In the present

transcription they would appear thus [jswa:], [ju:di:], [drb:o:bi:], [ctofe:], [mrgE-na:], [gJipma:], [ka:suwa:] respectively.

This transcription provides strong grounds to deduce that the authors might have set up J1J, JeJ, ]&], JoJ, Ju J , /i/, JbJ and JuJ underly- ingly,

Hoffman & Schachter (1969:72-84) present a very good chart which seems to represent the Hausa vowels adequately. The (trapezoid) diagram con­

tains ten vowels which are phonetically different. They could be in­

terpreted as follows: /i/, ///, JeJ, JeJ, /a/, /g/f JoJ, JoJ, /u/, /u/.

Thtit'r five long vowels occupy the positions of i, e, a, o and u, while the short vowels occupy the positions of i, £ , e> , o and u. One observes that the chart is more accurate, in the sense that the vowels are well plotted and seem to represent the Hausa vowels more accurately than the accompanying notes on the vowels. Some of the points expressed are either misleading or too general. For example, the authors state, 1 J1J contrasts with JuJ only in final position. After palatalized velars /i/ occurs to the exclusion of JuJ. After labialized velars JuJ occurs to the exclusion of /i/. Elsewhere JiJ and JuJ alternate with one another, and after a sound between the - [ i ] - is heard, e.g. /yte:birj or jte:bir]

'table',1 (op. cit. p.78).

The claim is not completely true; hence too general and misleading.

Consider, for example, the following words:

guda 'one' versus gida 'house' ruga 'camp' " riga 'precede' guna 'melon' " gina 'build' guri 'place' " giri 'bluff busa 'flute' " bisa h e i g h t ' buta 'kettle' " bita 'study*

buri 'wish' " biri 'monkey'

guna 'annoy' versus gina 'ant' tsufa 'old-age' " tsifa 'combing'

Kraft and Kirk-Greene (1973: 9-12), like seme of the Hausa investigators, have five vowels for Hausa they maintain that 'short vowels are quantitatively shorter in duration than the long vowels and very often differ in quality as well.,, , The fact that a given vowel is shorter rather than long may also be signalled (especially in closed syllable).by the fact that the short vowel sounds different from its long counterpart. Thus, the difference between tafi 'go

away' and tafi 'palm of the hand', is signalled both by the differences in the actual length of the two a's and by the fact that they 'sound' different (i.e. have a different phonetic quality', (op. Cit. p.11).

In another publication Kraft and Kraft (1973) maintain that . 'a' sounds much like the vowel in English, 'but' whereas 'a' sounds more like the vowel in 'hot' (p. 27),

If Kraft and Kraft maintain that the difference between /a/ and /a/ in Hausa is similar to that which exists between /but/ and /hot/

then the difference is one of quality rather than of quantity. This is because /a/ and /£>/ are distinct vowels in English and the difference

is of quality. For example, cod vs. cud; crotch vs. crutch; coddle vs. cuddle.

From the different analyses so far examined for Hausa vowels we are able to deduce that there are more than five underlying vowels in Hausa. Consider the following words:

duka 1 allr

duka ’flogging’

fito ’whistling’

fito ’ferrying across

riga ’gown’

riga ’precede’

ruga ’Fulani canp’

ruga ’run away’

fari ’white’

fari ’ogling’

No phonetician or phonologist, after listening to these words from a native Hausa speaker, could say that the difference between every word in a pair consists only in the quantity of the vowels of the words o 'What this means is that what the majority of Hausa writers would call the short counterparts of the corresponding long ones are not really identical phonemes for the simple reason that there is no phonetic justification for treating than so. Both phonemes (long and short vowels) contrast in identical environments. So that the difference between the vowels is basically one of quality and that is what matters to us here.

The Underlying vowels: Now we conclude that the dichotomy drawn between long and short vowels is not the principle difference making such vowels contrastive but rather that it is the vowel quality. This is the same as the difference between the vowels e.g. between /i/ and /e/ which con­

trast only in quality. We establish the following vowels as the under­

lying vowels for Hansa: /i/, /e/, /a/, /o/, /u/ which are tense and long. /■/, /**/. fvsj which are lax and short, idnse vowels are always

long, while lax vowels are always short. Tenseness or laxness of a vowel are not predictable features (except in closed syllables in which case the vowel must be lax). Moreover tone does not play any role in the tense/lax opposition. However, across morpheme boundaries we may find that tense vowels become [-tense] , for example, /keke^ n/

’the bicycle’ becomes [k^erk^eq] or [k^e:k^gr)] ; / bako^n/ ’the stranger' surfaces as [ba;kw oq] or [ba:kW£> q]. [e] and [o] in these examples would have to be interpreted as surface realizations of JeJ and JoJ respectively, since there are no lax mid-vowels phonemes, ^ (see 1axing rule,3,(5.71). So that an overall picture of Hausa vowels under various possible environments may proceed as follows:

(i) In open syllables (CVCV) the following vowels are possible:

[i:], [e:], [a:], [oil, [u:] , M , [i], [u].

(ii) In closed syllables within a morpheme there are the following:

[ i ] , [ e ] , M .

(iii) In final open syllables which undergo syllable closure by means of a consonantal suffix there are [i], [e] , [v] ,

[o], M, [*].

These surface representations will be interpreted as follows:

[i] as surface representation of /i/ or JiJ; [p] as surface representation of /p/, /a/, JeJ or Jo/; [u] as surface representation of JuJ or JuJ;

[e] as surface representation of /e/; /o/ as surface representation of fof and [h] as surface representation of either /i/ or /u/.