Our Dictionary

[suomichris]

Looks like the dictionary is missing kan "aim" and kop "too."

[Mirri]

And if you don't want to make a separate entry for awnga, please at least mention it under ayoeng, since it's completely unintuitive   (where'd the a at the end come from?)

Oeng is a contracted form of oe+nga, which is exactly what it is: "you and me". Ayoeng is simply the plural of this, and awnga is a contraction of the underlying form ayoenga. Also, oeng and its number derivatives revert to oenga- when inflected.

This is, at least, what WP says.

Hmmmm.. I get the etymology of it, but you'll also notice that the missing a at the end is what distinguishes it from 2nd person. The awnga having an -nga ending makes it look like it's a variant of 2nd person, hence the unintuitiveness. So I'd still like it in the document, because I'll have forgotten all this in a week


For the dictionary, we seem to be missing all the trial pronouns also.

[Taronyu]

I've added a note to the beginning saying that contractions will be assumed to be understood. I'm not going to be including all of the contractions, because they are easy to conjugate oneself. I am only including some here because they are in the ASG. I've included awnga.

Also, I've changed the infixes back. Stupid me. Finally, I've added tsakrr, edited si, and deleted *ler because it really is dubious.

[Mirri]

I've added a note to the beginning saying that contractions will be assumed to be understood. I'm not going to be including all of the contractions, because they are easy to conjugate oneself. I am only including some here because they are in the ASG. I've included awnga.

Also, I've changed the infixes back. Stupid me. Finally, I've added tsakrr, edited si, and deleted *ler because it really is dubious.

Thanks

I'm not sure if you uploaded the right document, however, it looks like you didn't finish correcting some of the new entries.

*Tsakrr should be "that time, then", the entry says "never"

*Something went wrong in the awnga entry, it says "WEweF". Should probably say "pn. we (inclusive), from ayoeng". Is it an allomorph or contraction or what's the classification?

*Should txantsan have its derivation specified? I'm assuming it's txan-sìltsan.

*Shouldn't si have only one entry? Or is it confusing if they're merged?

[Taronyu]

Fixed. My bad.

[Lance R. Casey]

Looks like the dictionary is missing kan "aim" and kop "too."

Kan, yes. Kop, no.

[omängum fra'uti]

Would be nice if you could include all source material in the corpus for analysis. For example, that looks like an attestation of ftiayu for "student" that we didn't have before.

The part with "ftiayu" is where he was quoting me (... san ke lu oe kea ftiayu lelì'fya sìk... the part in the middle were my words), not speaking his own words, so don't read anything into it.

You even confused Kwami with that one!  ... for all of fifteen minutes, anyway.

  - Eri

Oy...  All you have to do is read the Na'vi to get who said what.  If I said in English You had said "The sky is blue" but I think it is orange I'd hope it would have been clear that I wasn't saying the sky was blue, I was saying it was orange...

But let me spell it out here...

Poltxe nga san ke lu oe kea ftiayu lelì'fya sìk, slä law lu oeru, ngeyä lì'fya leNa'vi txantsan leiu nìngay!
Bold part is Frommer's words.  Italic part in the middle is him quoting my words...  Make sense now?  So yes, the "txantsan" is attested as a word, he was not quoting me on that one.  I wouldn't have even known to use it before I got that response.

[Mirri]

But let me spell it out here...

Poltxe nga san ke lu oe kea ftiayu lelì'fya sìk, slä law lu oeru, ngeyä lì'fya leNa'vi txantsan leiu nìngay!
Bold part is Frommer's words.  Italic part in the middle is him quoting my words...  Make sense now?  So yes, the "txantsan" is attested as a word, he was not quoting me on that one.  I wouldn't have even known to use it before I got that response.

Ahhh, I get it now. Tsap'alute, fra'u nìltsan lu

[Taronyu]

Looks like the dictionary is missing kan "aim" and kop "too."

Kan, yes. Kop, no.

Attestation of kan please?

[roger]

Attestation of kan please?

Frommer: 'Work' needs some explanation, which I'll provide when I have a bit more time. Hint: kan is the verb meaning 'aim.'

[Taronyu]

Attestation of kan please?

Frommer: 'Work' needs some explanation, which I'll provide when I have a bit more time. Hint: kan is the verb meaning 'aim.'

Added.
§§§§§
Things to do:
- verb infix positions.
- correlatives

[Mirri]

§§§§§
Things to do:
- verb infix positions.
- correlatives

Maybe we could make a new thread with a list of all the verbs and people could start filling in the infix positions?
Txan aynari tse'a nul.sìltsan, and all that

[Erimeyz]

Attestation of kan please?

Frommer: 'Work' needs some explanation, which I'll provide when I have a bit more time. Hint: kan is the verb meaning 'aim.'

Added to the Canon: http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php?title=Canon#Work_and_Aim

  - Eri

[Taronyu]

Changed all pe+ words to interogatives. Still unsure about fì--  and fay+. Demonstratives/deictics/correlatives/what?

It'd be much easier for me to just do it myself. Going to take time, but that's alright.

[Taronyu]

Some issues:

ft.i.a
n.i.ä or n.iä
sal.e.u or sal.eu [should this be salew?]
sr.e.u or sr.eu [should be srew?]

I have gone with the first option. I think this is correct.

ke-n.ong or k.en.ong
krrn.ekx or k.rrn.ekx
nuln.ew or n.uln.ew
panut.ìng or pan.ut.ìng
teswot.ìng or tesw.ot.ìng
yomt.ìng or y.omt.ìng

I have gone consistently with the first option.

.om.um or om.um

I've gone with the first option, here.

Also, I now have illustrated the infixes in kìyevame more clearly.

Hope you're all content.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Also, I now have illustrated the infixes in kìyevame more clearly.

Didn't Frommer tell us that <ev> definitely wasn't an infix in one of his private emails?

[roger]

ft.i.a
n.i.ä or n.iä
sal.e.u or sal.eu [should this be salew?]
sr.e.u or sr.eu [should be srew?]

I have gone with the first option. I think this is correct.

It's saleu in Jake's script. So all should be correct unless "dance" is really srew.

ke-n.ong or k.en.ong
krrn.ekx or k.rrn.ekx
nuln.ew or n.uln.ew
panut.ìng or pan.ut.ìng
teswot.ìng or tesw.ot.ìng
yomt.ìng or y.omt.ìng

I have gone consistently with the first option.

We know that yomtìng is only infixed on the tìng, and AFAIK that's two verbs. The other compounds are not two verbs, and I strongly suspect that you're correct, and that only the verbal element is infixed.

.om.um or om.um

I've gone with the first option, here.

I believe that's correct.

[roger]

Also, I now have illustrated the infixes in kìyevame more clearly.

Didn't Frommer tell us that <ev> definitely wasn't an infix in one of his private emails?

Yes, he did. So either he forgot about or wasn't considering this, or this isn't an infix <ev>. The common assumption is that it's <iv>, and has undergone dissimilation from the preceding vowel ì.

[Mirri]

.om.um or om.um

I've gone with the first option, here.

I believe that's correct.

"I knew" is <am>omum ?
Is it still an 'infix' if it goes in front of the word? What about the "after the first consonant of the syllable" rule?

[Plumps]

Ma Taronyu,
I think your decision for the infix-boundaries are ok.

Some things I noticed in v.7.3

- stress mark for 'ite should be 'ite
- futa "from fìu-t this accusative and a that" => the apostrophe in fì'u is missing (this typo is in it for a while, I think); I also liked your use of it in a sample sentence, so maybe you could add "that (thing) which" ?
- fwa "from f'u" => should be fì'u
- not sure about the entry for ikranay (but I think that was discussed elsewhere) because does that mean you think that ay- can be used as pre- and suffix?
- alright, here's a wild guess, and I'm not sure if that has been done before (if so, please ignore): if ke- = negate, tu = person, -wong = derived from ayoeng => ketuwong = "not one of us"?
- another wild guess: could one derive *ye'ung = "sanity" ? from keye'ung as ke + ye'ung ?
- is the IPA for kìm correct in [ɱ]?
- I just love the entry for letrr, seeing it as T,F => makes me smile
- where is it attested that lu has an eliding quality? (why "lu=")
- ngop can be marked as attested by F now, can't it? - it appeared in the mail together with txula
- definition of pe'un - you wrote inter., is that accurate?
- something is wrong with the formating in sìlronsem
- stress in tsmuke "sister" is tsmuke

I cannot state this often enough, can I? Thanks so much for your effort!