Learn Na'vi > Intermediate

Kaltxì

(1/2) > >>

Taronyu:
As I've noted elsewhere, for all affectionate forms, the final vowel goes to a high vowel. Thus sa'nok becomes sa'nu, and 'eveng becomes 'evi. I think this could be viewed as a phonological derivational rule.

Since I'm really tired of saying kaltxì, as it takes a lot of effort, I'm going to start saying kali.

Does anyone object to this, or have any comments? /i/ is a higher vowel than /ì/, and we've seen that the final consonant can be dropped. And it's a helluva lot easier.

MasterEro:
Based on how Frommer created sentence structure in a way that it could be easily varied from person to person, I think that words are intended to be altered in a similar manner. It think its just based on what is acceptable in society, like slang. In english we say "hi" instead of "hello" etc etc. And seeing how it isnt a widely used language, the shortened versions of words to make them less formal are yet to be created, so I think this is a good idea.

Nga txantslusam lu, tsmukan. Eywa ngahu.

Prrntxe:

--- Quote from: Taronyu on December 28, 2009, 10:16:09 am ---As I've noted elsewhere, for all affectionate forms, the final vowel goes to a high vowel. Thus sa'nok becomes sa'nu, and 'eveng becomes 'evi. I think this could be viewed as a phonological derivational rule.

Since I'm really tired of saying kaltxì, as it takes a lot of effort, I'm going to start saying kali.

Does anyone object to this, or have any comments? /i/ is a higher vowel than /ì/, and we've seen that the final consonant can be dropped. And it's a helluva lot easier.

--- End quote ---

I'd be cautious. What you say makes sense, but we don't know if there's some word kali in the vocab that means something like "sneeze" or "backscratcher" (for example). We also don't know how productive this apparent rule is. For example, the use of "geese" for the plural of "goose" does not lead us to say "meese" for "moose" (except in jest).

Also, I notice that all your examples of this process come from childhood words: "daddy", "mommy", "kid". Maybe it's more an imitation of children's speech than an actual rule?

Taronyu:

--- Quote from: Prrntxe on December 28, 2009, 03:04:20 pm ---
--- Quote from: Taronyu on December 28, 2009, 10:16:09 am ---As I've noted elsewhere, for all affectionate forms, the final vowel goes to a high vowel. Thus sa'nok becomes sa'nu, and 'eveng becomes 'evi. I think this could be viewed as a phonological derivational rule.

Since I'm really tired of saying kaltxì, as it takes a lot of effort, I'm going to start saying kali.

Does anyone object to this, or have any comments? /i/ is a higher vowel than /ì/, and we've seen that the final consonant can be dropped. And it's a helluva lot easier.

--- End quote ---

I'd be cautious. What you say makes sense, but we don't know if there's some word kali in the vocab that means something like "sneeze" or "backscratcher" (for example). We also don't know how productive this apparent rule is. For example, the use of "geese" for the plural of "goose" does not lead us to say "meese" for "moose" (except in jest).

Also, I notice that all your examples of this process come from childhood words: "daddy", "mommy", "kid". Maybe it's more an imitation of children's speech than an actual rule?

--- End quote ---

Geese isn't a measure of the productivity of that rule, it's a historical remnant of previous ablaut changes in Old English plurals. The rule is dead. This rule keeps going.

As for children's speech: very valid point. In which case, I'll take it that kali would be cuter. Also, we do need more vocab, but how long should we wait until we can be sure that every possible word doesn't exist?

jiitunary:
Wait for Frommer to come back from vacation?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version