[1] Here I have only attempted to give a representative sample. A fuller consideration of cognates between Len and PB, taking into account difficulites in some cases in establishing cognacy, occasional differences between Meeussen and Guthrie in their PB reconstructions, and alternate forms given Guthrie's CB, suggests that approximately 75% of PB first degree vowels have corresponding fricative vowels in Len.

[2] I have argued elsewhere (Connell, 1997) that the fricative vowels of Len may well reflect a Grassfields substratum in Len.

[3] It is not entirely clear what Meinhof considered to be the phonetic nature of Ur Bantu ACAL28paper86.gifand ACAL28paper87.gif. He refers to these two vowels as being `close' as opposed to `open' ACAL28paper88.gif and ACAL28paper89.gif, but at one point describes the difference between them as front ( ACAL28paper90.gifand ACAL28paper91.gif) as opposed to back ( ACAL28paper92.gifand ACAL28paper93.gif), and later, as mentioned below, diagrams them all at the same degree of height. He did consider ACAL28paper94.gifand ACAL28paper95.gifto have a quality of tenseness not associated with ACAL28paper96.gif and ACAL28paper97.gif, which presumably contributed to the friction, or fricating effect.

[4] Assuming the feature [+/-ATR] is intended here to have any phonetic content, this notion for PB appears to be problematic. First, there is no evidence from Bantu languages today to substantiate an [+/-ATR] distinction for these vowels, at least in the sense that this feature is applied to langauges such as Igbo and Akan. Second, it strongly suggests that [+ATR], i.e. tongue root retraction, was the phonetic `trigger' for spirantization, a scenario difficult to imagine.