Our Dictionary

[Mirri]

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.

Okay, that's a good explanation, and one that I haven't heard before
What I don't understand is how you can think all of this is obvious knowledge when the two central documents on the learnnavi.org site that we recommend that beginners download don't state this anywhere? I've never heard about a syllable nucleus.
The Na'vi Pocket Guide says:

The first infix position (after the consonant of the penultimate syllable) is taken by infixes for tense, aspect, or mood, as well as by participle and reflexive forms, which precede tense and aspect when they co-occur.

But unfortunately this document doesn't seem to be updated anymore.

Does anyone know of a replacement for this document?

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?

I'd say, pick anything from the 'illegal words' list and you'll find difficult examples.
We may consider these words illegal based on the rules we've been given by Frommer so far, but they clearly exist.

[Mirri]

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.

Maybe a traditional dictionary is not a teaching tool, but considering that Na'vi is still in its infancy I think it's unproductive to even make a dictionary that's only useful for people who already know the language, because nobody does except Frommer.

So despite the name of the document in this thread there's clearly something wrong with viewing it as a dictionary in the traditional sense, because it's a lot more than a reference. So far it's been the center point of a lot of our knowledge of Na'vi.

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.

And as nice as a wiki is for collaborative work, it's not the sort of thing you can print out and flip through easily. I keep going back to the Na'vi Pocket Guide even if it's outdated because it's just so much more convenient than having 6 different webpages open with stuff from wikipedia and the Na'wiki here.
And looking at our wiki at the moment, it doesn't yet contain all the knowledge that's in the Pocket Guide.


I think this whole discussion has a lot more to do with how we as a community share the teaching of Na'vi and compile our knowledge of it, rather than if this particular document meets the traditional standards of a dictionary in every other language. I think every other language has the luxury of having more than one person know the grammar, so in fact every document we make is inevitably going to be used for teaching

And I still don't see how infix marking is somehow ruining it for everyone. Quite the contrary, I think it's making it much easier for people to learn the language, which ultimately is everybody's goal here. I think it's as much a relevant linguistic reference as, say, IPA is.
You're not benefiting from beginners getting the infixes wrong because they can't figure out where they go, so why not make it easy for everybody and put it right there in the material that we're all using?

[Na'rìghawnu]

how you can think all of this is obvious knowledge when the two central documents on the learnnavi.org site that we recommend that beginners download don't state this anywhere?

Well ... I don't know, what's the text of the "pocket guide" ... and I surely don't recommend people to download it. (I saw it around the time of christmas ... it was nothing more then a copy of the Wikipedia-site of this time.) What's the other document you are talking about?

The Wikipedia-site (now Wiki Books) and our own wiki is much more worth for a recommendation in my eyes. About the infix-position the Wikipedia says:

There are two positions for infixes: between the consonant and vowel of the penultimate syllable, and between the consonant and vowel of the final syllable. For example, the phonetically simple verb káme "to see into, to understand", and the more complicated steftxaw "to examine", take the first and second position infixes ‹ol› and ‹uy› as follows:

                Root    position 1    position 2    positions 1 and 2
    Form    káme    koláme            kámuye            kolámuye
    Parsed            k‹ol›ame            kam‹uy›e            k‹ol›am‹uy›e
    Form    steftxáw    stoleftxáw    steftxuyáw    stoleftxuyáw
    Parsed            st‹ol›eftxaw    steftx‹uy›aw    st‹ol›eftx‹uy›aw

In monosyllabic words like lu "be", si "do", and new "want", however, all infixes appear in that one syllable, retaining their relative order:

                       Root    position 1    position 2    positions 1 and 2
    Form            néw            noléw            nuyéw            noluyéw
    Parsed                    n‹ol›ew            n‹uy›ew            n‹ol›‹uy›ew

URL: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Na%27vi/Verbs
PS: Wikibooks also has a "print" version.


And in our own Wiki:

First position affixes are placed between the onset and the nucleus of the verb's penultimate syllable. If the verb is monosyllabic, they are placed before the first, and only, vowel of the root.

URL: http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php?title=Verb_infixes

pick anything from the 'illegal words' list and you'll find difficult examples.

Sorry, but can you name examples? I can't find verbs in this list. (And infixes are just inserted into verbs.)

You're not benefiting from beginners getting the infixes wrong because they can't figure out where they go, so why not make it easy for everybody and put it right there in the material that we're all using?

I don't fight to show the infix-positions (allthough I don't find them necessary). All I say is, that they don't have to do something with the IPA. So I vote for removing these strange dots from the IPA-transcript. Dots have a different meaning in IPA-code.

[Taronyu]

Does anyone know of a replacement for this document?

Well, there's always my grammar....

http://content.learnnavi.org/taronyu/NaviAll.pdf

[Mirri]

Well ... I don't know, what's the text of the "pocket guide" ... and I surely don't recommend people to download it. (I saw it around the time of christmas ... it was nothing more then a copy of the Wikipedia-site of this time.) What's the other document you are talking about?

Have a look at:
http://www.learnnavi.org/
http://www.learnnavi.org/downloads/
http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

These are the first materials anyone who wants to learn Na'vi are going to look through.
The forums are secondary, I think mostly because the information is not organized at all. If I want to know how the topical works, I can't find anything on the forum, for instance.

The Wikipedia-site (now Wiki Books) and our own wiki is much more worth for a recommendation in my eyes. About the infix-position the Wikipedia says:

There are two positions for infixes: between the consonant and vowel of the penultimate syllable, and between the consonant and vowel of the final syllable.

Thanks for the link to the wikibooks, I'd forgotten about that one. Last I checked there wasn't much there. I think we can also agree that the wikibook text you cite above is wrong; it doesn't say anything about a syllable nucleus.

And in our own Wiki:

First position affixes are placed between the onset and the nucleus of the verb's penultimate syllable. If the verb is monosyllabic, they are placed before the first, and only, vowel of the root.

This one says nucleus, but fails to define what that is. I think this would benefit from your above description.

pick anything from the 'illegal words' list and you'll find difficult examples.

Sorry, but can you name examples? I can't find verbs in this list. (And infixes are just inserted into verbs.)

I can't tell them apart either, but they're there somewhere in the phrases. For instance the phrase for hammock, there's gotta be a verb there somewhere. But since we don't know what any of the words mean... eh. I'm hoping Frommer will just declare the whole confused lot non-canon so we can move on with our lives

You're not benefiting from beginners getting the infixes wrong because they can't figure out where they go, so why not make it easy for everybody and put it right there in the material that we're all using?

I don't fight to show the infix-positions (allthough I don't find them necessary). All I say is, that they don't have to do something with the IPA. So I vote for removing these strange dots from the IPA-transcript. Dots have a different meaning in IPA-code.

I think we've agreed on this for the past 4-5 posts. What I didn't agree with you on was that infixes don't belong in a dictionary and that it's "very simple" to find the infix positions for yourself. It seems that only our own wiki gets the rules right, Taronyu's grammar document mentions consonants too and so does Frommer's posts.

Which leads me to the question: how do you know you're right about the nucleus thing?
It's not from Frommer's grammar log, but I'm assuming you've deducted it from something in the canon, right?

[wm.annis]

Which leads me to the question: how do you know you're right about the nucleus thing?
It's not from Frommer's grammar log, but I'm assuming you've deducted it from something in the canon, right?

The "nucleus thing" is standard linguistic terminology for talking about how syllables are put together.  A few weeks ago I wrote this up in the Beginners subforum.

We know it's right because it correctly predicts every example in the Corpus.  In the Language Log post, Frommer simply said the infixes occur "in the syllable" — no mention of consonants.

[omängum fra'uti]

That and any other location would result in badly formed consonant clusters.

[roger]

The Na'vi Pocket Guide says:

The first infix position (after the consonant of the penultimate syllable) is taken by infixes for tense, aspect, or mood, as well as by participle and reflexive forms, which precede tense and aspect when they co-occur.

But unfortunately this document doesn't seem to be updated anymore.

Does anyone know of a replacement for this document?

The original of that document was at Wikipedia, now at Wikibooks. It continues to be updated. If you have specific problems with it, you can request corrections or clarifications. There's also a Q&A page for questions on the language, though they're not likely to generate the lengthy discussions you get here.

[omängum fra'uti]

The Na'vi Pocket Guide says:

The first infix position (after the consonant of the penultimate syllable) is taken by infixes for tense, aspect, or mood, as well as by participle and reflexive forms, which precede tense and aspect when they co-occur.

But unfortunately this document doesn't seem to be updated anymore.

Does anyone know of a replacement for this document?

The original of that document was at Wikipedia, now at Wikibooks. It continues to be updated. If you have specific problems with it, you can request corrections or clarifications. There's also a Q&A page for questions on the language, though they're not likely to generate the lengthy discussions you get here.

Going to start a thread here, because the pocket guide has lots of errors to discuss.

[Na'rìghawnu]

I think we can also agree that the wikibook text you cite above is wrong; it doesn't say anything about a syllable nucleus.

No, we cant agree on that. In this article the term "nucleus" isn't used, but it says, that the infix is inserted between the consonant(s) and the vowel of a syllable. This is exactly the same, as to say, that the infix goes in before the vowel. (And this is also made clear through the given examples.)

This one says nucleus, but fails to define what that is. I think this would benefit from your above description.

I agree. Maybe Wm.annis is expanding his Wiki-article a bit to explain the term.

but they're there somewhere in the phrases.

Well ... as I said. Show me the words you have problems with, and I will try to help you. As long as in fact there are no "difficult" words known to me, I stick to hold, that the rule to put the infixes in is valid and that it is "very simple".

Taronyu's grammar document mentions consonants too and so does Frommer's posts.

No, as Wm.annis said, Frommer DID NOT mention consonants in his (very short) explanation about infix-positions.

how do you know you're right about the nucleus thing?

See Wm.annis' answer ... and all above: the splendid post in his link!
And let me ask back: Where did you get the misleading information about "consonants" having something to do with the infix-positions. I'm reading in many posts here, that people have problems with the infixes, because they believe, infixes are put "after a consonant" ... where on earth did you get this (mis)information? Things could be so simple sometimes, if there wasn't spread out halfcooked stuff.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

A lot of people do get confused with the infix rules when they've learnt them based on consonants.

For example, the verb to fly (tswon) I have seen conjugated as tsamwon before or even the illegal tsìywon because people misunderstood the consonant rule which clearly isn't as simple as you htink. This could not have happened if they had been taught it based on vowels/pseudovowels.

[roger]

The most precise description would seem to be that the infix (a) follows the onset, (b) precedes the nucleus, and (c) comes between the onset and nucleus, all three of which mean the same thing if we assume null onsets. The problem with that is now the learner has one or two more linguistic terms to understand. IMO it would be easier to stick w "consonant" and "vowel", and explain either that "consonant" includes clusters, that "vowel" includes syllabic consonants, or say "between the consonant and vowel". I agree that "before the (pseudo)vowel" may be easiest, since it sidesteps the problem of null consonants.

BTW, the verb would appear to be tswayon, not *tswon, which is unattested.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

We've had this debate in many other threads and, IMO the evidence does not seem to indicate that tswayon is the root form and that therefore tswon is correct.

Anyway, why mention consonants at all? What about a new verb we could get that is "aei" then there are no consonants and people are confused or if we get a verb "lae" then people might think it is "l<1><2><3>ae" not "l<1><2>a<3>e".

[Na'rìghawnu]

Anyway, why mention consonants at all?

I agree. Exspecially for teaching-purposes, it's much easier to say, that "an infix is put always before the nucleus of the syllable", and to shortly explain, that "a nucleus is either the vowel, or the diphthong or the pseudo-vowel in a syllable".
Einstein said: Make things as easy as possible, but not easier. And the "before the nucleus!"-rule is IMHO exactly that ... it's "very simple" and it always fits ... so it's as easy as possible, and still correct.

[Erimeyz]

Anyway, why mention consonants at all?

Exspecially for teaching-purposes, it's much easier to say, that "an infix is put always before the nucleus of the syllable", and to shortly explain, that "a nucleus is either the vowel, or the diphthong or the pseudo-vowel in a syllable".

Even easier: "an infix is always put before the vowel of the syllable".

Then give examples.

Then point out that rr and ll count as vowels.

Then give examples.

Then, maybe, say that the vowel or psuedovowel are called the "nucleus" of the syllable by linguists.  And then never mention it again.

For teaching experienced language students, using words like "nucleus" and "IPA" is great.  For teaching people who saw Avatar and who want to learn Na'vi, using linguistics terms is dangerous.  You run the real risk of confusing them and scaring them away from learning the language.  In beginning materials, linguistics terms should be introduced incidentally, not directly, and should be used after the concept has already been explained using jargon-free language.

Some of that jargon (not all of it, but some of it) is helpful for beginners to learn, even essential, because it's the only concise way to express important concepts.  For example, my beginners' guide on noun cases and transitivity tackles concepts that really does require a beginner to learn some jargon they may never have heard before, especially if they have never studied another language (which seems to be the case with many of the beginners who come to Learn Na'vi).  I have to use words like "case" and "transitive" and "ergative", but I try very hard to explain them by way of example before introducing the term, so that the concept is clear before the terminology can scare.

But really, I think the problem that's being brought up on this thread isn't really about where to put the infix marker in the IPA transcription, or how to define the rules about infixes, or whether the words "consonant" or "vowel" or "nucleus" get used... it's that we still have very few and very poor resources for beginners.  That's not anyone's fault.  Nobody has a responsibility to write these things, and they don't write themselves.  A few folks (notably recently Kaltxì Palulukan!) are making some things, and many folks are hanging out in the beginners' boards trying to explain things to people one-on-one, and that's wonderful.  In time, we'll have better stuff.  But we should at least recognize that beginners' are still very much on their own right now, and take care when working with them and trying to help them out.

  - Eri

[Erimeyz]

By the way, this thread has been off-topic for several pages now.  And my last post didn't help.  Sorry.

  - Eri

[Na'rìghawnu]

Even easier: "an infix is always put before the vowel of the syllable".

Then give examples.

Then point out that rr and ll count as vowels.

Then give examples.

Then point out that also diphthongs count as vowels.

Then give examples.

Then don't underestimate students and firmly trust, that they are able to memorize a concept like "vowel or pseudo-vowel or diphthong of a syllable = nucleus".

by way of example before introducing the term

Well ... this is the old question about deductive and inductive learning. And as we know today (through literally hundrets of studies in learning psychology) both have got strong and weak points and lead to similiar results. The success doesn't rely on the one or the other teaching method (as long, as they are done properly), but on the kind of learning-type of the students. Some are able to grab things faster the inductive way, some understand it easier the deductive way. There are always both types in a class, most times to nearly the same quantity.
(And since the deductive way is the one mainly used in teaching at universities and alike, deductive teaching is quite rare at primary school, but it's amount increases step by step as students attend middle-school, highschool, college ...)

[roger]

Then don't underestimate students and firmly trust, that they are able to memorize a concept like "vowel or pseudo-vowel or diphthong of a syllable = nucleus".

It's not a matter of underestimating them. It's that they already need to learn tons of jargon in order to read the material, and the more jargon, the less accessible it is, and the less accessible, the fewer who will follow through on it. Some of them may not be sure what a preposition is even in English. Sure, if we were only asking them to learn the def of "nucleus", it wouldn't be an issue. But they also need to learn about transitivity, ergative, dative, (im)perfective, affect, modal, etc etc. It gets to be a bit off-putting after a while. Things like "transitivity" they need to know because it comes up again and again. But "nucleus" only comes up here. It's a bit like an acronym: why bother introducing it if we never use it again?

[Txur’Itan]

Then don't underestimate students and firmly trust, that they are able to memorize a concept like "vowel or pseudo-vowel or diphthong of a syllable = nucleus".

It's not a matter of underestimating them. It's that they already need to learn tons of jargon in order to read the material, and the more jargon, the less accessible it is, and the less accessible, the fewer who will follow through on it. Some of them may not be sure what a preposition is even in English. Sure, if we were only asking them to learn the def of "nucleus", it wouldn't be an issue. But they also need to learn about transitivity, ergative, dative, (im)perfective, affect, modal, etc etc. It gets to be a bit off-putting after a while. Things like "transitivity" they need to know because it comes up again and again. But "nucleus" only comes up here. It's a bit like an acronym: why bother introducing it if we never use it again?

I suggest using embedded links to definitions in the beginners forum.  This is a better middle ground I think.  If one needs to know, they read the post, if they don't they read the words.

When you use the word coda do this coda. For example...

[roger]

I suggest using embedded links to definitions in the beginners forum.  This is a better middle ground I think.  If one needs to know, they read the post, if they don't they read the words.

When you use the word coda do this coda. For example...

But even that means their reading is interrupted. It's like reading in a foreign language where you have to look up every other word in the dictionary: after a while it's just not worth the effort. If "coda" came up again and again, yes, linking would be a good idea, because we'll have readers who've forgotten what it is when it comes up the 2nd or 3rd time, or who maybe start in the middle and have missed our explanation. But if it only comes up once, and isn't a difficult concept that needs a separate tutorial, why not just explain what we mean and move on? "The infix comes before the (pseudo)vowel a ä e i ì o u rr or ll." For the more linguistically orientated, we could put "nucleus" in a footnote. Like when we introduce the future tense: tayaron "will hunt". IMO it isn't worth it trying to explain at this point that English doesn't have a future tense; that again is s.t. that we could put in a footnote for the more linguistically attuned.