To advance-experts of the Na'vi language

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Between the tense and lax <u> or between {ɑ} and {a}? The answer's yes to both. To most native English speakers that I've asked, {a} sounds more like a na'vi <ä> than {ɑ}. With the "a"s, for one thing, {a} is a front vowel whilst {ɑ} is a back vowel, other than that they're basically the same. {a} is just a little bit more open than <ä> but is still a front vowel. As for tense/lax <u>, the lax one is slightly more front and open than the tense.

[Tsamsiyu92]

How to pronounce the "a" then? is it similiar to "ɑ" with a slight movement? Is it like an ɑ, with the tongue a bit up giving it a slight æ (ä)-sound to it?

['Oma Tirea]

How to pronounce the "a" then? is it similiar to "ɑ" with a slight movement? Is it like an ɑ, with the tongue a bit up giving it a slight æ (ä)-sound to it?

It's somewhat in between the two phonemes {ɑ} and {æ}, and, as Kemeoauniaea said, generally NOT the "a" in English "father."  Whether or not the {a} is centralized in Na'vi I don't know, but that isn't of importance.

The lax /u/ is never a required sound...  Wherever the lax /u/ is correct, the other is also correct.

I know, but if I remember Frommer's pronunciation correctly (which I quite probably don't), it is a relatively common variation.

I agree with Omängum here. [ʊ] is basically an allophone of /u/ in medial position.

The oo in food is the tense na'vi u, the lax would be the oo in foot.

To be honest, the "oo" in foot actually varies in English whereas it doesn't in Na'vi.  In my local accent, [ʊ] is pronounced more like [ʊə] before coronal consonants, and [ɤ̟] elsewhere.  [ʊ] hardly varies in Na'vi because it is an allophone of /u/.

[Tsamsiyu92]

We have both [ʊ] and /u/ in Norwegian.