Our Dictionary

[roger]

I know what what they do, ma roger

Ah, sorry. I didn't read your post closely enough.

[Mirri]

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.

I like the infix marking a lot better. I have no need for looking at compounds or syllables, but I need to know the infix positions all the time

[Na'rìghawnu]

[jomt.ɪŋ] [ɾ.alp.ɛŋ]

What's this strange usage? In IPA-Code a dot marks a syllable-border.
It's not for marking positions of infixes or alike.
You can't simply change IPA-standards according to your own ideas and still call it IPA.

confusing

[Plumps]

That's why Taronyu uses underlining for stress - where we know it at least, which is not much. The problem is that syllable boundaries are often unclear. When we do know more, maybe it's time to think the present system over but until then, I don't mind.

[suomichris]

[jomt.ɪŋ] [ɾ.alp.ɛŋ]

What's this strange usage? In IPA-Code a dot marks a syllable-border.
It's not for marking positions of infixes or alike.
You can't simply change IPA-standards according to your own ideas and still call it IPA.

confusing

I was baffled by that, too, but Taronyu says in the first bit: "I have included periods in the IPA to mark where infix- es are to be placed, as in t.ar.on."

It's not standard IPA, but it is a nice thing to have marked...

[Na'rìghawnu]

Hm. Still wondering. Because ... aren't there clear rules about the placing of the infixes, which can be applicated to any verb quite comfortable? I mean, I don't see, why this positions must be indicated at all ... and then even with a symbol, that has a complete different meaning in the IPA-code. IF you really want to indicate this positions at all, I would suggest to do it in the lemma-word, not in the IPA-transcript, because this has absolutely nothing to do with IPA (= International Phonetic Alphabet, IPA is about Phonetics not Morphology).

That's why Taronyu uses underlining for stress

To be honest, I also don't understand this very well, since the IPA-code (of course) includes a method to indicate stressed syllables in a word: the main stress is marked using an apostrophe-like symbol at the start of the stressed syllable, e. g.

[ˈfɪ.po]

At least in words, where we know the stressed syllable, we also know the borders of this syllable. Besides that the rules Dr Frommer gave us about syllable structures make it possible to detect the syllable-borders in very many words (or at least most of these borders; i would guess, that we can indicate about 80% of all existing syllable-borders; in most words they are completely clear, in other words, most of the borders are clear, in very few words we don't have any idea). So

The problem is that syllable boundaries are often unclear.

is not quite right. At least I don't agree to the "often" and would change it to "sometimes". Since Wm.annis and myself are building up the vocabulary-section in our wiki (http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php?title=Vocabulary), where we of course have to deal with such problems too, I think, I know quite well, what I am talking about.

[roger]

It's a nice thing to mark, but I agree that it would be clearer to use a non-IPA symbol, such as a raised dot And it shouldn't be in the IPA transcription, as it's not part of the phonology. So maybe kame k·am·e ['ka.mε] or something.

[omängum fra'uti]

The rules are usually clear, but composite words aren't always the same.  For example, yomtìng, ralpeng, etc only have one infix location, not the two you would expect strictly following the rules.

[Na'rìghawnu]

And exactly because this is the fact Wm.annis wrote in a former post:

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.

[Plumps]

[...] Because ... aren't there clear rules about the placing of the infixes, which can be applicated to any verb quite comfortable? I mean, I don't see, why this positions must be indicated at all ... [...]

You'd think there are clear rules .... You know there are clear (and understandable) rules - I know there are clear rules but still, I've seen it so many times that users put the infixes wrong ... maybe they started to build complex sentences too soon, maybe they didn't read the information we have properly (the collection in Wiki, for example to which I'm really grateful to you guys!) but it still happens! All the time. It may cause us to roll our eyes and ask ourselves "can't they read and learn the material before they start using these kind of construction?" ... I guess, you can't help it - everybody has a different way of learning.
For those that want to start quickly, I think the method of showing where an infix has to go, is quite good. Whether it's a dot or a raised dot, I don't mind so much.

Syllable boundaries in IPA: I think Taronyu thought about that and dismissed it because it would lead to confusion with the apostrophe and the marking for the ejective ... again we have the problem of creating material for mainly non-linguists who don't want to 'learn' how IPA works (even though it would make their lives easier - language learning wise, I mean ) but who just want to start using the language and know how to speak it...

Just my 2c

[Na'rìghawnu]

Good points, I acknowledge very well.

It's just the question, whether you want to create materials mainly intended as learning aids for learners without or with a very small language-learning-background or materials as aids for people, who are studying on a more (in some cases: much more) experienced level.

I think, everybody, who already has studied a foreign language with a different pronounciation-system is aware of basic IPA-concepts, because they are used throughout all serios dictionaries (and also in the vocablists of good textbooks). So, e. g. the stress-marking apostrophe, shouldn't be unknown to them. And the problem about this is (at least in my eyes), that there was a NEED to create the IPA-system and to make it a standard, because it makes it easier to learn languages, in case the same system is used everywhere, regardless which language you want to learn. Before there was IPA, textbook-authors just chose transcribing-systems, which they thought would be appropriate. So every dictionary, every textbook used a different system - even, if they were textbooks teaching the same foreign language! You always had to deal with a bunch of different symbols and systems. This was (and is) very annoying and not very efficient.

I'm reading again and again in this forum, that people are attracted by the Na'vi-language and do experience - often the first time in their lives (!) - the joy of learning a language and the joy of merging into lingustic problems. Many wrote, that they never were very keen on learning foreign languages at school, but now their "lingustic mind" is triggered and awaking. Some wrote, that they start to understand phenomenons of the languages they learn (or have to learn) using the concepts they have understood in learning the Na'vi-language. So I find it a very nice thing, that people actually start to get interest in language-learning at all using Na'vi. But ... if they try to use e. g. the so-called "IPA", they saw in this dictionary, in a dictionary of - say French, German or Swahili - they will be wondering, where the underlining is, why the dots are used different than "in Na'vi", what the heck this apostrophe-like symbol is for etc.

So then we have the same problem, which always caused troubles in the pre-IPA-time. They will have to realize, that the socalled "IPA" in this dictionary here differes from the real IPA. They will see, that they can't simply adopt things, they learned here, to other languages ... And since this is of course the fact about grammatical structures and so on, it is really NOT necessary to confuse people about the IPA-transcript, because at least in this part of linguistic we finally overcame the thousands of different systems in establishing an universal standard. To change things in this standard without any real need to do so, just in the case of one single language means: Going back to the time of confusion and inefficiency of the pre-IPA-era.

So I still hold, that it would be better not to make changings to the IPA-concept. Or, IF you can't resist to make them, then stop calling it IPA. And besides that (as said above): morphology has nothing to do with IPA, so morphological hints should be outside the square brackets!

Just my two cents ...

[Mirri]

So maybe kame k·am·e ['ka.mε] or something.

Doing that would make the dictionary impossible to search in, I don't think that's a good idea.
If you're going to be purist about the IPA bit, make a third copy of the word with the infix markings afterwards then. This is a special feature of the language (for any of us who speak Western European languages, at least) and needs extra attention.

I'm curious to know what they do in dictionaries of languages that have infixes?

You'd think there are clear rules .... You know there are clear (and understandable) rules - I know there are clear rules but still, I've seen it so many times that users put the infixes wrong ... maybe they started to build complex sentences too soon, maybe they didn't read the information we have properly (the collection in Wiki, for example to which I'm really grateful to you guys!) but it still happens! All the time.

I agree. Until there's a group of people to actually talk to, the IPA guesses we're making seems secondary. For me at least, Na'vi is more a written language than a spoken one (ironically enough).
Learning the infixes are more important at the moment. I know there are some rules for it, but I don't fully understand them. For instance, what do you do with an infix in a consonant cluster?
The IPA and syllables stuff can be dealt with when Frommer publishes the rules for it all. I mean, the movie isn't even out on DVD yet

[Na'rìghawnu]

For instance, what do you do with an infix in a consonant cluster?

Maybe I can help you out. But I don't really understand your problem. Can you give me an example?

[Mirri]

For instance, what do you do with an infix in a consonant cluster?

Maybe I can help you out. But I don't really understand your problem. Can you give me an example?

The big language log article that Frommer made talks about consonant clusters. And I think that's also where he mentions the rule about infixes being after the first consonant in the penultimate syllable. So what if you have a consonant cluster in that position, does the infix go after the cluster or in the middle of it?

[Na'rìghawnu]

No, Frommer didn't say something about "after the first consonant" or alike. Indeed in his article he said no more than

With monosyllabic verb roots, first-position infixes simply come before second-position ones. With multisyllabic roots, however, first-position infixes occur in the penultimate syllable and second-position ones in the final syllable.

That's all about it. But looking at his examples and usage we know, that the infixes are always placed between the onset of the syllable and it's nucleus. The nucleus of a syllable is either it's vowel, or diphthong or pseudo-vowel (ll/rr).

So it's really simple: An infix is always placed right before the vowel (diphthong/pseudo-vowel) of the syllable.

Examples:

(1) plltxe
- nucleus of first syllable = pseudo-vowel "ll" = before this "ll" is the place for first-position infixes
- nucleus of second syllable = vowel "e" = before this "e" is the place for second-position infixes
that means: p<1>lltx<2>e

(2) ftxey
- nucleus of the (one) syllable = diphthong "ey" = before this "ey" the infixes go in
that means: ftx<1><2>ey

(3) hahaw
- nucleus of first syllable = vowel "a" = before this "a" is the place for first-position infixes
- nucleus of second syllable = diphthong "aw" = before this "aw" is the place for second-position infixes
that means: h<1>ah<2>aw

e. g.: harmahängaw = h<arm>ah<äng>aw


It's that simple! Just find the vowel (diphthong/pseudo-vowel) of the syllable and place the infix right before this vowel (diphthong/pseudo-vowel). That's it.

[Plumps]

Ma Na'rìghawnu

that's a good explanation! If people haven't understood it so far, with this they will.
Little error: I think you mean "vowel" in all instances where you wrote "vocal"

Irayo

[Na'rìghawnu]

Yes, thanks for the correction. I will change it.

[Mirri]

No, Frommer didn't say something about "after the first consonant" or alike. Indeed in his article he said no more than

With monosyllabic verb roots, first-position infixes simply come before second-position ones. With multisyllabic roots, however, first-position infixes occur in the penultimate syllable and second-position ones in the final syllable.

That's all about it. But looking at his examples and usage we know, that the infixes are always placed between the onset of the syllable and it's nucleus. The nucleus of a syllable is either it's vocal, or diphthong or pseudo-vocal (ll/rr).

So it's really simple: An infix is always placed right before the vocal (diphthong/pseudo-vocal) of the syllable.

Examples:

(1) plltxe
- nucleus of first syllable = pseudo-vocal "ll" = before this "ll" is the place for first-position infixes
- nucleus of second syllable = vocal "e" = before this "e" is the place for second-position infixes
that means: p<1>lltx<2>e

(2) ftxey
- nucleus of the (one) syllable = diphthong "ey" = before this "ey" the infixes go in
that means: ftx<1><2>ey

(3) hahaw
- nucleus of first syllable = vocal "a" = before this "a" is the place for first-position infixes
- nucleus of second syllable = dipthong "aw" = before this "aw" is the place for second-position infixes
that means: h<1>ah<2>aw

e. g.: harmahängaw = h<arm>ah<äng>aw


It's that simple! Just find the vocal (diphthong/pseudo-vocal) of the syllable and place the infix right before this vocal (diphthong/syllable). That's it.

See, that's not simple to me. You just picked some simple examples to show it on. The idea of a "nucleus" of a syllable is foreign to me. I cannot identify this by myself, I need smart people like you guys on the forum to figure this out for me. And leaving me to figure it out on my own just means I'll come up with something that might be wrong and I'll never know. Which isn't helping me learn the language. Seeing lots of examples of what's correct is what's helpful.
A word like fmetok is confusing because there the infix is not after the first consonant, but after the first block of consonants.

Apart from having to remember that some consonants are actually vowels in Na'vi and vice versa, there's still odd situations like ' in the middle of a word or in the beginning. And I'm not so concerned about monosyllabic words, those are fairly easy because everything just goes in the same place.

Bottom line is that the helpfulness of Our Dictionary is dramatically increased by showing infix positions

Now if the current way of showing infixes is messing up the purity of the IPA, then that's a different problem. Just write the word a third time with infixes afterwards then. It's only on verbs anyway.

[Na'rìghawnu]

A word like fmetok is confusing because there the infix is not after the first consonant, but after the first block of consonants.

Infix-insertion has NOTHING to do with consonants!
An infix is not "after a consonant", but before a vowel!
So the vowels in fmetok are "e" and "o". That means: First position infixes are set before the "e" and second position ones before the "o". So it's: fm<1>et<2>ok.

Vowels in Na'vi are: a, ä, e, i, ì, o and u
Diphthongs are: aw, ay, ew and ey
Pseudo-vowels are: ll and rr.

If you find one of them, than you have the nucleus of the syllable. And the infixes are put before this nucleus.

Well ... I can't quite see, where's the problem with this ...

PS. The ' (glottal stop) is no vowel, it's a consonant.
PPS.

You just picked some simple examples to show it on.

Well... what are difficult examples?

[wm.annis]

See, that's not simple to me. You just picked some simple examples to show it on. The idea of a "nucleus" of a syllable is foreign to me.

A dictionary is not really a teaching tool, it's a reference tool.  While we do want it to be easy for people to use, there's no particular reason to expect a complete novice to a language to be able to use a dictionary for that language.  I have to read a 40 page paper just to figure out how to use the Navajo dictionary I have, and the average Arabic dictionary is practically unusable to someone who hasn't studied the language for more than a year.

Right now students of Na'vi are stuck with a very small body of known good Na'vi to look at, no official grammar yet, and very little material for beginners.  Some of what is being discussed here about infix location, etc, belongs in a language primer, not a dictionary.  Erimeyz has the beginnings of such a primer taking shape on the Wiki, but we need a lot more of that sort of material for these sorts of matters, rather than try to make the dictionary cope with also teaching the language.