As mentioned in Part one, the Kunama, like the Italian language, has the particularity of doubling the consonants in a word and pronouncing them accordingly (that is, prolonging or shortening the sounds upon those consonants); e.g.:

          “angnga” as opposed to “anga”;

          “battada” as opposed to “bata”;

          “danna” as opposed to “dana”;

          “ledda” as opposed to “leda”;

          “killida” as opposed to “kilida”;

          “kolloda” as opposed to “koloka”;

          “kulluda” as opposed to “kulida”;

Based on this doubling or not doubling principle of consonants in a Kunama word, it can be very misleading and confusing if one were not careful enough to maintain such rule, (in writing as well as in speaking the Kunama language), as it is proven by the following words:

            “nangama” as opposed  to “nangamma”;

            “nengenuma” as opposed to “nengenumma”;

            “nima” as opposed to “nimma”;

            “noma” as opposed to “nomma”;

            “numa” as opposed to “numma”, where the Kunama language, with the simple doubling or not doubling of the consonant “m” can differentiate between the positive and the negative meaning of a word or even a word having a totally different meaning;

e.g.    “kussume” as opposed to “kosimme”.

          “kokka” as opposed to “koka”.

  Regarding the use of the combination of the following consonants:

ch; gl; gn; ng; ngk; nn; sh,

to transcribe the Kunama words like:

cha; kuglia/agluga; gna; ngada; ngka; nna; shoda,

I have repeatedly stated that I have plagiarised the identical spellings and sounds of words existing in the English and in the Italian languages; e.g. child/chalk, sing/song, shirt/shot (English); Luglio. legna/gnocchi (Italian). The combinations “ngk and nn” are to spell and transcribe the unique sounds of those Kunama words and very often uniquely and adequately pronounced only by the native speakers of the Kunama language. “Nna”, in Kunama, (“this” in English), can be spelt and pronounced only in this way and not, as many keep spelling it as “inna”, where the consonant “i” has to be pronounced fully and which therefore would totally corrupt the right pronunciation of this word and contrary to the sound the Kunama themselves would utter. The consonant “n” in “nna”, is mute and therefore it cannot be replaced by the full sound of the vowel “i” (inna). Similarly “ngka”, in Kunama, (which/which one, in English), is a particularity of the Kunama utterance of the sound of this word and therefore it can only be spelt with the preceding three mute consonants “ngk”, ending with the full sound of the vowel “a”.

  Inexplicably, the Kunama language is very fond of the ending “ng”, particularly of its verbs; e.g. “ngada: (to eat); “nangke” (I have eaten): “nang gonake” (I am eating): “kong goske” (it is being eaten), where, should the two parts of this verb be even spelt together, one has to be consequent enough to spell them: “nanggonake, konggoske”.

It is to be noticed that the Kunama language is very constant in spelling and pronouncing every letter of its words and, as a matter of fact, this is the basic reason leading me to sustaining that the alphabets like, “w”, replaced by “u”, in IPA’s transcription, and “y” by “i”, are redundant ones and have therefore been eliminated altogether, from the Kunama alphabets. There is no need for spelling, for instance, the Kunama words “bubiya, niyatiya, kidiyitta” and “ekkenowa, mongorowabbu, lagowayekin” when simply “bubia, niatia, kiditta” and: “ekkenoua, monggoroabbu, lagouaekin” would very well do. As for differentiating, in uttering the sound as well as understanding the meaning of the word “kiditta” (not of one’s own name/fame) or “kiditta” (without name), one is called to do so in the context in which this word is being used. Such practice is not a particularity only of the Kunama language, but of all languages in which a single word could have different meanings but still correctly understood in its contextual setting. It is therefore up to us Kunama to simplify our language, graphically as well as phonetically, so as to make it as easy as we can, in spelling its words and uttering their sounds, for ourselves first and for those non-Kunama individuals interested in learning and speaking it.

  In conclusion, I am appealing to all my fellow-Kunama to come up with every constructive suggestion they may have in trying to reach to form a single and unified way of writing our Kunama language.

Sullumasi,