Bushman languages

also called  San languages 

      loose grouping of languages that confusingly have been considered to be a separate group within the Khoisan languages. The term Bushman as it is used to describe certain southern African hunter-gatherers is somewhat controversial because it is perceived as racist. The name San is an alternative that has found some favour, but it, too, is not free of negative connotations. Both terms are unsatisfactory when applied to languages because they falsely imply the existence of a distinct linguistic subgroup of Bushman, or San, languages.

 Because it purports to combine Khoe (Khoi) languages with a distinct group of “San languages,” the term Khoisan, which is freely applied to at least three or possibly four very different groups of languages, clearly adds to this misconception. Whereas all the Khoe languages do constitute a valid family, the non-Khoe remainder in fact includes the Ju, Southern, and Hadza groups, which do not (see figure—>). It has been claimed that the so-called Bushman languages do have a linguistic integrity based on greater phonetic complexity than the Khoe languages, involving in particular some features of vowels and the structure of click consonants. However, the Khoe languages differ considerably among themselves in phonetic complexity and in some cases show similarities to some but not other “Bushman languages.” Thus the use of phonetic resemblance provides no justification for a distinct Bushman grouping. These languages also differ in other important linguistic features, arguing further against a linguistic unity. Another problem with the term San is that it has been used in a nonlinguistic sense to differentiate groups who primarily hunt and forage from those who are herders; however, many of these San (in this sense) speak a Khoe language.

Anthony Traill

 

* * *