Our Dictionary

[Utrayä Mokri]

When i was surfing and googling about animal living on pandora, i found something not in the dictionary.

I'm directly copy and paste the first paragraph.

------
The Slinger (Na'vi name: Lenay'ga), or strange terrible sloth, (scientific name: Acediacutus xenoterribili) is one of the oddest and most dangerous creatures yet discovered on Pandora. Growing in size up to 2.4 meters in height, this land predator/carnivore prefers a dense rainforest habitat and it's main food source is the Hexapede.
------

Full Information can be found here

[Erimeyz]

When i was surfing and googling about animal living on pandora, i found something not in the dictionary.

Good find!  I must say this, though:

Na'vi name: Lenay'ga

That name sounds distinctly un-Na'vi.  Technically it doesn't violate the syllable construction rules, but aesthetically it's awful.

First, you have to assume that where they've written "g" they're using the "scientific" notation, which corresponds to "ng" as we commonly write it here.  Okay, that's no big deal.

But!  A syllable whose vowel is a diphthong and which ends in a glottal stop?  Yuck!  As I said, technically it's legal, but there's nothing like it in the established corpus, and I'd bet you a doughnut that if you asked Frommer he'd say "oh, right, you can't do that, I just forgot to mention it."

  - Eri

[roger]

But!  A syllable whose vowel is a diphthong and which ends in a glottal stop?  Yuck!  As I said, technically it's legal, but there's nothing like it in the established corpus, and I'd bet you a doughnut that if you asked Frommer he'd say "oh, right, you can't do that, I just forgot to mention it."

You're right, it doesn't look particularly Na'vi. But OTOH, Frommer does seem to be trying to spread his words fairly evenly across the possible syllables. Look at the f-clusters: much more even than you'd get by chance, and he's even said that every possibility can be illustrated with an existing word. FAIK, he's done the same with codas.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

That name sounds distinctly un-Na'vi.  Technically it doesn't violate the syllable construction rules, but aesthetically it's awful.

First, you have to assume that where they've written "g" they're using the "scientific" notation, which corresponds to "ng" as we commonly write it here.  Okay, that's no big deal.

Agreed. For now I propose a tentative assertion that the correct for should be lenaynga which shoulds reasonably na'vish although it does sound a bit like it's related to you which it probably doesn't.

Also it gives the possibility of nay being a noun.


Lastly, it looks like it's already in the dictionary in the illegal words list and has been for a while.

[Txon Taronyu]

Cool

[Mirri]

Some observations on 9.103.

*The words don't all seem to be alphabetized properly. Is this done automatically or manually by Taronyu?
For instance, why is why is lì'u before lì'fya?
I spotted a couple more words out of order, but didn't note them down. I'm assuming they all have to be sorted again properly anyway. (?)

*Is kalin in the sense of "nice person", or in the sense of taste?

*I think vofu and tsìvol should be removed now that we've got a number system in the appendix.

[Lance R. Casey]

*I think vofu and tsìvol should be removed now that we've got a number system in the appendix.

Especially since we now know that vofu is in fact fourteen (16 octal)...

[okrìsti]

Hi,
some thing I was wondering about:
Verb infixes

• <iyev>: [ijɛv] _FE future subjunctive verbal infix
  in position 2: Oel kiyeveame ngati. I will
  see you soon.
• <ìyev>: [ɪjɛv] _FE future subjunctive verbal infix
  in position 2: Oel kìyeveame ngati. I will
  see you soon.

Then I have some questions:
Why are sometimes the glottal stops included in the stress underlining of those vowel/syllable things, sometimes not?
Should new information about stresses given in the language update be included?
What about the sources, are they set once and for all or can that be upgraded if a source higher validity exists?

Greetings
okrìsti

[Taronyu]

Hi,
some thing I was wondering about:
Verb infixes

• <iyev>: [ijɛv] _FE future subjunctive verbal infix
  in position 2: Oel kiyeveame ngati. I will
  see you soon.
• <ìyev>: [ɪjɛv] _FE future subjunctive verbal infix
  in position 2: Oel kìyeveame ngati. I will
  see you soon.

Then I have some questions:
Why are sometimes the glottal stops included in the stress underlining of those vowel/syllable things, sometimes not?
Should new information about stresses given in the language update be included?
What about the sources, are they set once and for all or can that be upgraded if a source higher validity exists?

Frommer indicated that <ìyev> and <iyev> are allomorphs of each other. both are valid.
Because stress marking is not consistent in the corpora.
Yes, sources can and should be updated. Since I don't have time to run over ever extant bit of text, if you have any suggestions for upgrading, let me know.

[Lance R. Casey]

Searching around, it seems everyone seems to use lahe as an adjective (but it's listed as a pronoun)

We have this snippet, from the Canon wiki page: As for aylaberu, the b should be an h.

Hence lahe is not an adjective. (ay+ + lahe + -ru: for the others)

I think I need to correct myself on this one -- it looks like it's both. When Tsu'tey translates Jake's line "you tell the other clans to come", his sentence sounds like ayolo(')ru alahe peng ziva'u.

[tawway]

Hi,
some thing I was wondering about:
Verb infixes

• <iyev>: [ijɛv] _FE future subjunctive verbal infix
  in position 2: Oel kiyeveame ngati. I will
  see you soon.
• <ìyev>: [ɪjɛv] _FE future subjunctive verbal infix
  in position 2: Oel kìyeveame ngati. I will
  see you soon.

Then I have some questions:
Why are sometimes the glottal stops included in the stress underlining of those vowel/syllable things, sometimes not?
Should new information about stresses given in the language update be included?
What about the sources, are they set once and for all or can that be upgraded if a source higher validity exists?

Frommer indicated that <ìyev> and <iyev> are allomorphs of each other. both are valid.
Because stress marking is not consistent in the corpora.
Yes, sources can and should be updated. Since I don't have time to run over ever extant bit of text, if you have any suggestions for upgrading, let me know.

Oh, I was about to ask why [iyev] has an example using [ìyev] and vice-versa

[okrìsti]

Hi,
some thing I was wondering about:
Verb infixes

• <iyev>: [ijɛv] _FE future subjunctive verbal infix
  in position 2: Oel kiyeveame ngati. I will
  see you soon.
• <ìyev>: [ɪjɛv] _FE future subjunctive verbal infix
  in position 2: Oel kìyeveame ngati. I will
  see you soon.

Then I have some questions:
Why are sometimes the glottal stops included in the stress underlining of those vowel/syllable things, sometimes not?
Should new information about stresses given in the language update be included?
What about the sources, are they set once and for all or can that be upgraded if a source higher validity exists?

Frommer indicated that <ìyev> and <iyev> are allomorphs of each other. both are valid.
Because stress marking is not consistent in the corpora.
Yes, sources can and should be updated. Since I don't have time to run over ever extant bit of text, if you have any suggestions for upgrading, let me know.

Ahw, I think you did not get my point. I know about the allomorphs.
There is a twist of ev in the first example, which must be corrected.
The IPA of the fist one (<iyev>) has [ɪjɛv] at the moment, where it should be [ijɛv], since lì'fya leNa'vi is a spoken language, where the typed out difference between iyev and ìyev would make no sense, so there must be a difference in pronunciation expressed by the IPA.

[roger]

Neytiri calls the direwolf tsmukan. Odd to have the gender there, but what about tsmuktu? The tu is presumably from tute; does that mean tsmuktu cannot be used for animals?

Not an important question, just wondering.

[Alìm Tsamsiyu]

In the same vein as okrìsti - your first example (<iyev>) spells kiyevame as kiyveame.  I suspect this is the source of that rogue 'e' in okrìsti's posts:

in position 2: Oel kiyeveame ngati.

in position 2: Oel kìyeveame ngati.

Alìm: My underlining to point out the e

-----------

On a side note, I think I found a small error in the dictionary under tengfya.

You have the definition listed as:

as, same way as (with the following derivation) derived from *teng the same way as and *fya path.

The part I highlighted with red I believe should be deleted, as *teng would seem to mean just "like, same as" as you have listed as its definition.

[okrìsti]

Neytiri calls the direwolf tsmukan. Odd to have the gender there, but what about tsmuktu? The tu is presumably from tute; does that mean tsmuktu cannot be used for animals?

Maybe a male nangtang.
..tu sìk oe zene mivllte.

[...]

oe zene mivllte

I made a mistake.
oeru txoa ayngeyä livu

I meant:
<iyev>: [ɪjɛv] ... kìyveame ... → <iyev>: [ijɛv] ... kiyevame ... (Verb Infixes, Vocabulary (IPA))
<ìyev>: ... kiyevame ... → ... kìyevame ... (Verb Infixes)
(Maybe no change with the examples.)

More findings:
tireapängkxo: [tiɾɛapængkʼo] → [tiɾɛapæŋkʼo] (Vocabulary)(same page as Alìm Tsamsiyuyä finding)
tìtakuk: [titakuk] → [tɪtakuk] (Vocabulary)
tìng mikyun: [tɪm ...] → [tɪŋ ...] (Vocabulary)
tìng nari: [tɪn ...] → [tɪŋ ...] (Vocabulary)
-ur: [ur] → [uɾ] (Vocabulary, Noun Inflections)

okrìsti

[Plumps]

tìng mikyun: [tɪm ...] → [tɪŋ ...] (Vocabulary)
tìng nari: [tɪn ...] → [tɪŋ ...] (Vocabulary)

Ma okrìsti
those two are actually correct. The following nasal sounds of m and n influence the nasal ng of tìng and kind of assimilate the pronunciation making it sound like *tìmmikyun and *tìnnari
I don't know if this is the right linguistic explanation - others might help you better

[Plumps]

oe nìmun

But I actually just stumbled upon something that concerns the infix positions:

You gave
ralpeng as *r.alp.eng but it behaves like yomtìng [yomt.ìng] => ralp.eng
Source by Frommer: http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php?title=Canon#Some_Conjunctions_and_Adverbs

I don't know whether there are other verbs of that kind - that's the one I've noticed...

[roger]

oe nìmun

But I actually just stumbled upon something that concerns the infix positions:

You gave
ralpeng as *r.alp.eng but it behaves like yomtìng [yomt.ìng] => ralp.eng
Source by Frommer: http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php?title=Canon#Some_Conjunctions_and_Adverbs

I don't know whether there are other verbs of that kind - that's the one I've noticed...

Ralpeng is a noun-verb compound. Only the verb inflects.

Yomtìng, however, is a verb-verb compound. I suppose semantically the TAM only affects the giving, not the eating, so it's only 'give' that is inflected. Or perhaps it's not semantic at all, and we simply have a rule that in the case of compounds, only the final element is inflected.

[Plumps]

I know what what they do, ma roger

That's what I wanted to hint at - ralpeng should be changed in the IPA to ralp.eng to show that infixes do not go after the r

[wm.annis]

In the wiki we're using a middot (yom·tìng) to indicate these compounds where the inflections should go only into the word after the dot.