A Na'vi homophone?!?

['Oma Tirea]

Kilvan = k<ilv>an

Wierd, kefyak?

Anyone know any other words that have this strange property?

[Kemaweyan]

Wou! Good catch

So, the same issue can be with verbs ends on -u:

  wìntxuyu

Is this wìntx<uy>u or wìntxu-yu?

[Plumps]

tì-mok – 'suggestion'
t‹ìm›ok – 'just was'

[Swoka Swizaw]

I don't have one, but Lord knows that as the lexicon develops, the dropping of "ay-" from plurals will create the potential for homophonic single object stems and "dropped" plural stems. Either Frommer will have something to say about this by NOT making single object words in Na'vi (that look) like fay (waters)/tep (fires), or just won't give the dung of a nantang...and there might be MANY homophones.

[Kemaweyan]

sar - verb "to use"
sar - tsar in plural (dative of tsaw)

saw - "skies", taw in plural
saw - tsaw in plural

[Nyx]

And don't forget
tìm - adj. low
tìm - short plural of txìm

Ma Ìngkoruptusì, I think Frommer said something about how context would make it clear which one is being used. And if you want to avoid ambiguity you can just use the long plural, that is, leave the ay+

[Ekirä]

Of course there's this.

pxay: adj. many
pay: n. water

['Oma Tirea]

I think Frommer said something about how context would make it clear which one is being used.

Indeed, quite important.  Although with such a minimal phonetic set used in such ways, you'd think sooner or later they're would be homophones, kefyak?

[Nyx]

Yeah, and think about all the puns we'll have then

['Oma Tirea]

Gotta say, though, it seems like "kilvan" is a unique case

[Swoka Swizaw]

Gotta say, though, it seems like "kilvan" is a unique case

Kilvan always seemed odd to me.

[Muzer]

sim = lenited tsim (source) and to be close

['Oma Tirea]

Found this from the Dictionary thread:

• tìngyu: tìng-yu "giver" or +txìng-yu "leave/abandoners"  *
• kilvan: kilvan "river" or k<ilv>an "have aimed (subjunctive)"  *
• kamä: k<am>ä "went" or +kxam-ä "middles'"  *
• tìyawnur: tìyawn-ur "love (dative)" or tì-y<awn>ur "being washed"  *
• ramol: r<am>ol "sang" or ram-o-l "some mountain (ergative)"

Any language large enough to be usable will almost certainly end up with ambiguities like this unless the morphology is very carefully designed to avoid them. However, since choosing the correct meaning of a word is usually possible from context, this is mainly a problem only for computer parsers, not for actual speakers of the language.

Sran.  To develop a language that has words that don't become homophonous with other words when grammatical modifications are done takes some serious memorization and feeling with the language.  Although, if enough words in a language are gathered, homophones just happen (e.g. cent and scent)

[

['Oma Tirea]

So, the same issue can be with verbs ends on -u:

  wìntxuyu

Is this wìntx<uy>u or wìntxu-yu?

Lemme see...

We have:

• 'emza'uyu
• hawnuyu
• wìntxuyu
• fyawìntxuyu
• sunuyu
• sl(eyk)uyu
• zosluyu
• za'uyu
• 'efuyu
• lonuyu
• kxuyu
• mäkxuyu
• muwìntxuyu
• täftxuyu

As for homophones caused by lenition, those are somewhat irregular and not so easy to find....

[Nyx]

Would you count au = drum and au = exclamation of consternation? I guess that's cheating a little because one is just an interjection. And the stress is different.

['Oma Tirea]

Would you count au = drum and au = exclamation of consternation? I guess that's cheating a little because one is just an interjection. And the stress is different.

Sran, they are very close, just like the two ways to say tute.

[C'tri Atan'itan]

Yeah, and think about all the puns we'll have then

I shall start preparing my standup routine now

[Keylstxatsmen]

• 'emza'uyu
• hawnuyu
• wìntxuyu
• fyawìntxuyu
• sunuyu
• sl(eyk)uyu
• zosluyu
• za'uyu
• 'efuyu
• lonuyu
• kxuyu
• mäkxuyu
• muwìntxuyu
• täftxuyu

For these words:

wìntxuyu, fyawìntxuyu, sl(eyk)uyu, lonuyu, kxuyu, mäkxuyu, muwìntxuyu, täftxuyu

The stress will be different, and so are easily distinguished from each other in conversation.

-Keyl

[Kemaweyan]

The stress will be different

It's possible only in spoken conversation. In writing there is no difference

[Keylstxatsmen]

The stress will be different

It's possible only in spoken conversation. In writing there is no difference

I'm not sure who's collecting the notes from last weekend's workshop or when they will be presented, but Frommer did "bless" the use of accent marks when our human-only writing system would give us ambiguous homophones:  i.e. tute vs tuté.   I can't remember if it was decided to use an accent mark in this situation or an underline.... (everyone knows I prefer accents) and I don't have my notes on me right now.

-Keyl