Jump to content

Talk:Luganda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Some of the consonants are inaccurate (the 'dental' /t/ and /d/ are actually alveolar, as they appear in English as well. See Ladefoged et al. (1968 University of Oxford Press) for more details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.205.103.174 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 May 2006.

I'll modify the text so that it's clear that they are alveolars. Often, dental is used in a rather vague way to describe alveolar and postalveolar sounds too. — Gareth Hughes 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the cleanup tag added? it's not the above point, as the tag was added in February. --Brownlee 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because much of the article appears to have been taken verbatim from the buganda.com page, and, interspersed with original Wikipedia text, makes not very much sense )(e. g. the bit starting with "this discussion" Edricson 07:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on phonology does not mention that Luganda is a tonal language. Does anybody have a good reference on this? I might search for it myself, but I'm not sure I'll have the time to do so. I am planning some articles on Buganda music. The tonality of the language plays an important role in the music so I would like to refer to it. Nannus 09:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the section on Orthography (which I think was taken from buganda.com) with a detailed discussion of the spelling system. I think the result is a fairly comprehensive article. The only thing that's missing now is a section on the history & development of the language.

Copyvio?

[edit]

I removed the section entitled "History and development".[1] It appears verbatim at http://www.buganda.com/luganda.htm. The internet archive shows that buganda.com has had this information up since 1999.[2][3] . Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm easily confused in the mornings). In the meantime I'll work on replacing this information with a sourced non-copyvio version. Cheers, shotwell 14:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected a few spelling and translation errors and added a note on the tonal character. Overall this is a very impressive monograph. Sam Kigongo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigongos (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All six vowels"

[edit]

There are five vowels. I'm no expert, but I think there's a problem here... 83.80.137.241 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like vandalism when no-one was watching. kwami (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fix the problem 41.223.119.37 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Done. DMacks (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ganda language → Luganda language Luganda — Not an expert at all on this language, but "Luganda" seems to be the more common name. "luganda language" recieves 19,500 results on Google, while "ganda language" recieves 4,990 results, over three times less. The majority of the few websites about this language appear to use "luganda" (1, 2, 3), or in some cases both languages, such as here, with hardly any using "Ganda" on its own. Note that "Ganda" can also refer to the Baganda, the people of the Buganda kingdom in Uganda. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google counts over about 700 are meaningless. 4000 might be more than 3 million, so this should not be used as evidence for anything. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Luganda is spoken by the Baganda who live in Buganda. That's the East African system of prefixes at work. But I see no reason not to call the language Luganda; calling it Ganda has not avoided confusion. Support Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of those rare occasions when I agree with Septentrionalis! They do happen, occasionally! We are primarily concerned with establishing the most common term in Ugandan English, as national varieties of English come into play. Confining the Google search to items in English from Uganda shows an overwhelming result: 28,000 hits for Luganda excluding Ganda; 2,960 hits for Ganda excluding Luganda. Looking a little closer, hardly any of the results for Ganda refer to the language. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We generally call languages by their WP:English name, not their native name: Swahili language, not Kiswahili, German language, not Deutsch, etc. There was a long debate at Swahili language about this. Among the Bantu languages, there are a few exceptions, where the prefix disambiguates two or more languages: Kiluba & Tshiluba, Kimbundu & Umbundu, Lingala & Bangala. (And there are other solutions for those languages as well, if need be.) So it's partially internal consistency: not just whether this particular language is more commonly referred to with or without the prefix, but whether the reader can expect a WP article to use or not use the prefix, to follow or not follow WP:English.
Similarly, I would argue for Ganda people, not Baganda, Swahili people, not Waswahili, German people, not Deutsche, etc. While we might be comfortable with the native forms, the average reader may not be. If we start justifying one form or the other with Google searches, we're going to end up being inconsistent, and consistency has value in an encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well-intentioned, but are you right on the facts? The English word for something is what is actually used and understood by English-speakers: Baganda for the people, not Ganda. It would be nice if there were a more elegant system in use, but Wikipedia is not the place to invent one. (I hold that we have the right to choose among recognizable terms, but not to promote a logical term to common usage, unless it is; and I am a wild-eyed radical in these matters. We cannot be more consistent than English will permit.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But 'Ganda' is used by English speakers. It's the term used by Ethnologue[4], for example. Most Bantu language names occur in English as both the root and with the prefix, and often with several prefixes, one from the language itself, one from the local dominant language, and one the national language. By just using the root, rather than deciding on a ki-, i-, or lo- prefix, we remain language neutral. (We might think the native form should take precedence, but it's often much more obscure in English than the form from a neighboring Bantu language.) Again, do we want a common Bantu naming policy, unless there is some reason for an exception, or do we want ad hoc names depending on which sites Google happens to prefer that year, or which books happen to have been scanned into Google books?
Consider the dialects of Ganda. Would we prefer the roots, Kooki, Sese, Vuma, Diopa, or the native forms, Olukooki, Olusese, Luvuma, Ludiopa? — kwami (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another way of putting kwami's question is "do we use the term that the language is normally referred to in Ugandan English or do we impose a little used term because that fits in with our idea of consistency". In this case there is little doubt how the language is known in Ugandan English, despite kwami's claim (based on what?) that Google counts over 400 are meaningless. As I pointed out earlier, I did also look at the first few pages of those search results to check that the parameters were working, and hardly any of those hits for Ganda referred to the language. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are our standards for Uganda based on Ugandan English? Should articles on India be written in Indian English? I'm not familiar with any such convention.
As for Google hit counts over 700 being worthless, there are several good discussions of that. Here's one on Language Log from U Penn.
Google Books, by the way, has 253 hits for Luganda and 224 for "Ganda language", approximately equivalent, considering that some refs use "Ganda" for the language without explicitly spelling out "Ganda language". (Compare 197 hits for Kiswahili vs. 196 for "Swahili language", despite the fact that Swahili is the more common term.)
As for not finding refs that use "Ganda" for the language, I'm finding lots of them. Here are some from the first page of my search:
  • The Study of Language‎. George Yule, 2010 (section header for the language is "Ganda")
  • Kingship and State: The Buganda Dynasty‎. Christopher Wrigley, 2002 ("Notes on Language" section uses the phrase "the Ganda language")
  • Dictionary of Languages: The Definitive Reference to More Than 400 Languages‎. Andrew Dalby, 2004 (Ganda-language chapter is titled "Ganda")
  • A sketch of the modern languages of Africa. Robert Needham Cust, 1883 (notes that "Ganda" is called Lu-Ganda in Ganda and Ki-Ganda in Swahili, but the book itself uses "Ganda". Note the date: this usage has been around for a while!)
  • Ganda art. Aloysius Muzzanganda Lugira, 1970
  • "The Sacrifice of Christ and Ganda Sacrifice", Edison Kalengyo, in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, 2009 (uses the phrase "Ganda language")
  • African traditional moral norms and their implication for Christianity. Joshua Wantate Sempebwa, 1983 (has a chapter "On the Ganda language", which starts, "The Ganda language, Luganda, is one of the oldest Bantu languages", with italics to show that Luganda isn't considered English by the author)
And so on with titles such as Webster's English to Ganda Crossword Puzzles; The eastern lacustrine Bantu (Ganda and Soga)‎; Ganda Literature; Some features of Ganda linguistic structure; etc. etc. It's also the term used in Nurse & Philippson's very well respected The Bantu languages‎.
I'm not denying that "Luganda" is also quite commonly used, but "Ganda" is even used in the English synopses of books written in Ganda:
  • Ebyobuwangwa y'emmunyeenye y'eggwanga ("On the Ganda language, how it is used in comparison to other languages and how the language interlocks with culture.") Kirwana Ssozi, 2002
  • Twejjukanye Oluganda ("On how the Ganda language has become distorted over the years.") Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko, 2001
  • Erinnya n'embu zaalyo: ggulama w'Oluganda ekitabo ekisooka ("On the Ganda language and alphabet.") Masaazi Masagazi, 1998
Africa: journal of the International African Institute spells out their preferences for submitted articles as follows: "the Swahili language, or simply Swahili (not Kiswahili), a Swahili man, the Swahili people (not Waswahili), or the Swahili; a Ganda, the Ganda language, or Ganda; Ambo (not Ovambo); Zande people (not Azande); Nama (not Namaqua)".
— kwami (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps kwami should familiarise himself with the guidance at Wikipedia:Article titles on National varieties of English, which states All national varieties of English spelling are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. An article title on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation (for example Australian Defence Force). American spellings should not be respelled to British standards, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state). Occasionally a less common term is selected as an article title because it is appropriate to all national varieties; for example, Fixed-wing aircraft. The point here is that this particular article has strong ties to a particular English speaking nation, and it is not up to the rest of us to impose our terminology on it. It would, of course, be much easier if we had different versions of Wikipedia for the different varieties (it would stop all those interminable US/UK battles, for instance), but we don't: we all have to share the same Wikipedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Uganda requesting input. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ArticleTitles provides no clear guidance here. It gives examples of orthography and of using internationally recognized terms. "Ganda" is also used in publications from Uganda, with Ganda authors. I think you're reading into it what you want to hear.
BTW, I have posted at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Both forms are used in English but "Luganda" seems to be more so (anyway, the two dictionaries on my shelf, Kitching and Murphy, use "Luganda") "Luganda" has the added benefit of referring unambiguously to the language. — AjaxSmack 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If google searches are problematic, there's also database sources. A linguistics-centric JSTOR search seems to favor Luganda with 69 for Ganda and 504 for Luganda (I'm not sure how many of the former group are actually in the latter, since a search for "Ganda" can occasionally include "Luganda"). A similar search with Swahili has 237 for "KiSwahili" and 1799 for "Swahili." If we are to base our naming on usage, rather than logic (which is appropriate IMHO), then we should take a case-by-case approach to the article naming process of Bantu languages. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that use "Ganda" very frequently mention that it is Luganda in the language, so I would imagine that quite a few of those are duplicated. — kwami (talk)
  • Support. After living in Kampala from 1992 to 2005 (and visiting since) I can say that no one when speaking in English says "Ganda" for anything. For the language, they always say "Luganda" ("Ganda" being the root). I can see there is an argument for using the root in written English, and the article, while being currently entitled thus, uses "Luganda" in the text; otherwise we would need to have "Ganda language" throughout (to avoid confusion with the land and the people), which strikes me as clumsy, whereas "Luganda Language" title then happily allows "Luganda" in the text. On the question of Google search results, I suspect that the "Ganda" results refer mostly to older documents when it was common in both spoken and written English to use the root (but more often for the people than the language in my reading). (At times the British administrators applied erroneous prefixes from Swahili to Ugandan Bantu languages!) But there is also a need for consistency with articles on other Bantu languages in Uganda which use the same or similar prefixes: those of which I have checked currently have their titles with no prefix. I suggest this is now an archaic form in English. I noticed that at least some corresponding articles in other European languages have, for example, "Luganda", "Lusoga" and "Runyankole" where we have "Ganda", "Soga" and "Nkore". Apalomita (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Luganda language" would not be a good title, as it's tautology. It would either be "Luganda" or "Ganda language".
"Luganda" is more common, but "Ganda" is clearly not obsolete. Most of the refs I gave above were from the past few years. Also, Ethnologue, which used to use the form "Luganda" (thus the iso code lug) has switched to "Ganda". As in this article, they tend to use "Luganda" in running text, perhaps, as you pointed out, to avoid having to say "language" over and over, but use "Ganda" for the name of the article.
Basically, my argument boils down to this: a title of "Ganda language" is clear to the casual reader, whereas "Luganda" presupposes some familiarity with the subject. Also, since we introduce both forms in the lede, there's no reason not to use "Luganda" in the text where convenient, regardless of the title. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Luganda language' would not be a good title, as it's tautology." In Luganda but not necessarily in English. Luganda would be fine as a title too as it's not ambiguous. — AjaxSmack 03:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per our MOS, we don't append 'language' when it's only the name of a language, as in Esperanto. In English, 'Luganda' can only mean the Ganda language. At least, that's the only def. in the OED, which is close enough for our purposes. For Ganda, the OED has (1) the language, and (2) the people. — kwami (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the statement "'Ganda language' is clear to the casual reader, whereas 'Luganda' presupposes some familiarity with the subject." I doubt either would be especially familiar to "casual" readers (depending on how casual you mean). Moreover, if that standard were to apply to other articles, we would still have African American Vernacular English be titled "Ebonics." As long as both Luganda and Ganda language go here, so I don't see why we would want to have the title of the article be one and the referent used in the text be the other (as it's done now).
Another thing, if we do decide to go with "Ganda language", we don't have to add "language" to every instance of "Ganda" in the text. Readers are quite capable of using context to distinguish between the land, the language, and the people. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confusion with Ganda/Baganda/Buganda/Luganda/Uganda?

[edit]

So the Ganda or Baganda people live in the Buganda kingdom in Uganda and speak Luganda... right? What do -ganda and the various prefixes mean? I think that would be helpful for all those articles. Thanks. --AW (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's gender / noun classes. Will copy the info box. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article in unknown language

[edit]

In what language is this article: Esigalyakagolo ? Please comment on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English#Esigalyakagolo.  Andreas  (T) 02:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online dictionaries

[edit]

The links to all three dictionaries are broken. Does anyone have any updated ones? I guess we should remove these three unless they can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espensj (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Some IP is edit-warring over deleting the ISO name of the language, calling it "unsourced". Restored. They're also adding unsourced info that contradicts our sources with the argument that it's "unsourced". Stupid to waste people's time with a thread on this, but going through the motions for bureaucracy's sake. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

[edit]

I have changed the pronunciations from / / to [ ], since the convention is to use [ ] for pronunciations, i.e. phonetic transcriptions, but / / for phonemes. Correct me if I'm wrong. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC) - The correct usage is that used by the contributor who wrote: "The liquid /l~r/ has two allophones [l] and [r]". I have tried to harmonise the use of [ ] and / /, but I may sometimes have got it wrong. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering of notes

[edit]

The numbering of notes in this article has gone astray. For example, note [21] in the text refers to note [18] in the list of references. Can anyone correct this? Kanjuzi (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kanjuzi, as I saw your answer 8 years later, I don't know how to answer you, but I hopefully hope yes. 177.105.90.85 (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have sorted itself out now. I cannot find any errors any more. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luganda. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luganda. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luganda

[edit]

My local language 41.210.145.248 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luganda&oldid=1230556740"