Two Questions

[Taronyu]

I didn't want these to get lost in the dictionary thread with only two or three responses, so.

First: I'm now marking syllables in the dictionary. This leaves me with a few choices: I can either no longer mark infix places, or I can mark them differently. I've gone over and done the glottal stop section - please, go have a look and tell me if _ looks too klunky. I could use the mid-dot. Or  perhaps I should just discard the _ now, and go with mere syllables, hoping that people will understand where to put things, or whether they actually, in the end, really are useful. Or I could mark only those words which aren't regular, like yomt.ìng (not y.omt.ìng). What do you think? Please vote! Thanks.


----------

Secondly, Kemoiuanainanea raised some good points in this thread, stating that my IPA notation of the dipthongs may not, in fact, be accurate. He, from his admittedly not-extensive look into IPA, would submit that:

[ ɛj ] [ aj ] [ ɛw ] [ aw ]

be replaced with

[ ɛɪ̯ ] [ aɪ̯ ] [ ɛʊ̯ ] [ aʊ̯ ] .

Note: Wikipedia: The diacritic <  ̯> is placed under the less prominent component to show that it is part of a diphthong rather than a separate vowel, though it is sometimes omitted in languages such as English, where there is not likely to be any confusion.

I initially had brushed this off as just differences in notation, but I think he actually has a really good point. The way I'm telling it now, there's no difference between 'ewll and new. I think that the dipthong ought to be reflected and different: also compare yem and 'eyng. Now, I'm cool going through changing them, if this sounds right to you all.

[Pxia Säsngap]

I didn't understand the secound part: Why is there no difference between new and 'ewll.
I'm not sure anyone can read IPA. That'd be the most disturbing fact with this idea. Except for that it may be the best way to make it clear how a word is pronounced. For the ones who can't read IPA, you could maybe add a link in the dictionary where they explain IPA (or a complete explanation). I guess that'd be great.

To what you wrote first: I think it's a good idea to mark rather the syllables than the infixpositions, because anyone can read about the infix positions in NiaN (I don't know if there are more places where they explain it) and also it's a "simple" rule where to put them. But to find out about the syllables is much more difficult. At least this is my opinion on it.
Also it becomes too complicated to read how one has to pronounce a word, when there are too many "unusual" signs in it.

[Taronyu]

I didn't understand the secound part: Why is there no difference between new and 'ewll.

I assumed that 'ewll isn't a dipthong, as the syllable drops between 'e.wll. So, technically, this should be pronounced differently. I think?

I'm not sure anyone can read IPA. That'd be the most disturbing fact with this idea. Except for that it may be the best way to make it clear how a word is pronounced. For the ones who can't read IPA, you could maybe add a link in the dictionary where they explain IPA (or a complete explanation). I guess that'd be great.

I can, and I know most of the experts here can - probably why they are better at speaking it. It is the best way to show how a word is pronounced, as it follows international conventions. I don't know of a single good place to learn it - I spent a semester in classes learning it - but people can find it themselves, as like in every other dictionary out there.

To what you wrote first: I think it's a good idea to mark rather the syllables than the infixpositions, because anyone can read about the infix positions in NiaN (I don't know if there are more places where they explain it) and also it's a "simple" rule where to put them. But to find out about the syllables is much more difficult. At least this is my opinion on it. Also it becomes too complicated to read how one has to pronounce a word, when there are too many "unusual" signs in it.

I agree with both of your points here.

[Pxia Säsngap]

I didn't understand the secound part: Why is there no difference between new and 'ewll.

I assumed that 'ewll isn't a dipthong, as the syllable drops between 'e.wll. So, technically, this should be pronounced differently. I think?

Wiya, I didn't recognise that! Then of course I understand what you're saying and I also totally agree with you that these two words have to be pronounced differently. Although one probably couldn't really hear the difference if someone is speaking Na'vi fluently.

I'm not sure anyone can read IPA. That'd be the most disturbing fact with this idea. Except for that it may be the best way to make it clear how a word is pronounced. For the ones who can't read IPA, you could maybe add a link in the dictionary where they explain IPA (or a complete explanation). I guess that'd be great.

I can, and I know most of the experts here can - probably why they are better at speaking it. It is the best way to show how a word is pronounced, as it follows international conventions. I don't know of a single good place to learn it - I spent a semester in classes learning it - but people can find it themselves, as like in every other dictionary out there.

Well, I hardly understand how to pronounce a word by IPA. So, I'd be the first one you know, who'd definitely need a table which explains what which means.

To what you wrote first: I think it's a good idea to mark rather the syllables than the infixpositions, because anyone can read about the infix positions in NiaN (I don't know if there are more places where they explain it) and also it's a "simple" rule where to put them. But to find out about the syllables is much more difficult. At least this is my opinion on it. Also it becomes too complicated to read how one has to pronounce a word, when there are too many "unusual" signs in it.

I agree with both of your points here.

So ma frapo what do you think about it? We are only two persons and Taronyu has given us all the chance to comment on that.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

1. RE:syllable marking, _ is a bit clunky I think, maybe we could use full stops for syllable breaks (which is apparently optional standard IPA) and commas for infix marking, that shouldn't break the word up too much but should let you show both bits of information.

2. You know my position on the diphthongs so there's not much point in me restating it. Although I'd like to point out that the two-vowel notation makes it a little easier to explain to people a fì'u oe fpìl.

['Oma Tirea]

1. RE:syllable marking, _ is a bit clunky I think, maybe we could use full stops for syllable breaks (which is apparently optional standard IPA) and commas for infix marking, that shouldn't break the word up too much but should let you show both bits of information.

Even the comma may seem a bit clunky, especially when located right nearby full stops.  Would the middle dot (·) work better?

2. You know my position on the diphthongs so there's not much point in me restating it. Although I'd like to point out that the two-vowel notation makes it a little easier to explain to people a fì'u oe fpìl.

I would simply go for what's phonetically accurate first and foremost, setting aside the non-syllabic diacritic marks if neccesary.  If the diphthongs in the dictionary say {ɛj} and {ɛw} but mean {ɛɪ} and {ɛʊ}, they should be transcribed as {ɛɪ} and {ɛʊ} to avoid any pronunciation misinformation.  Vice versa applies, too.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

1. Middle dot's probably a bit easier to mistake than a comma although either would be ok.

2. {ɛj} isn't a wrong transcription as far as I can tell, rising diphthongs are normally written with this notation after all so the pronunciation information is still accurate, just possibly a bit harder to understand.

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì, ma Taronyu.

1)  Marking both infix-positions and syllabification is laudable, but i think doing both in the same place is visually confusing, and, ultimately, i feel like it may confuse the very people it's intended to help.  I have my own dictionary in Numbers/Excel format on my computer, and what i've done is make a column for general grammar notes.  So, when a verb takes infixes somewhere other than where you'd expect (as in the compound verbs), i mark those in that section like this:  maweyp•ey.  So, perhaps keep marking infixes on verbs for which it's necessary, but at the end of the dictionary entry instead of in the pronunciation/syllabification bit?

2)  I can read IPA somewhat (i only learned the symbols that were relevant for English and French), but i wasn't aware of the dipthong-marking...thing.  That said, if the current method creates ambiguity, then i'd say by all means change it.

[Plumps]

Kaltxì ma Taronyu,

1) I'm also a bit against the _ for marking infix position. The middle dot seems to me a good alternative if you don't want to take the approach the Wiki takes by writing the word twice (would rather take up space, in the end)
Tigermind's suggestion to mark only those verbs where it is different from what you would expect is a good solution.

It is rather a question of how concise you want the dictionary to be... Do you want it to contain every information or do you want it to be ›just‹ a listing of the lexicon with additional information here and there?

2) I think I'd adjust to whatever you decide. I thought, especially concerning your example of 'ewll and new that syllable boundaries would make it clear anyway whether it's supposed to be a diphthong or not ...

[Mrrvomun]

Please do mark infix position for those words that are compounds.  People like myself who are learning vocab in a 'need to know' order will probably have absolutely no idea what the components of compounds are, so we really need them there.  However, I think that we ought not memorize the position of infixes in learning the language, but that we should learn the rules behind the positioning of infixes and use that to speak/write properly.  So I wouldn't bother marking the regular words. 

As for the way they should be marked, I wouldn't make it too complicated, and I'd just mention the positions in a note alongside the definition.  Or maybe stick a symbol on the end of the word, pointing to a separate appendix for unusual infix positions, if the list isn't too long.  Actually, I prefer the second method, as that allows you to use it as a dictionary (which is, after all, the identity of this tool), and it also gives you much needed, specific grammatical info if you need it. 

As for IPA, I think I can confidently say that at least 85% of us here cannot flawlessly read IPA, including myself.  That being said, I think that those of us who CAN comprehend it should receive the most benefit from it.  Therefore, I think that it is very important that the IPA notation for the words in the dictionary must be as accurate as possible.  Please do correct the IPA notation as suggested by Kemoiuanainanea, if it truly is the most accepted way to write dipthongs.

--Mrrvomun

[Tirea Aean]

I like the idea of marking compounds and also the more confusing words such as omum, 'i'a and other words where infixing could be unexpected for a beginner. Words like Taron and kame don't really need it. I like centerdots. Underscore seems eh. Of course keep apostrophe for stress...I use that often..

I can read IPA and support the dipthong change.

I Also support the other appendix idea.

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

Yes, I think showing where the infixes are is an excellent idea! I often don't know where to put them and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd prefer having them with < (infix here) >

Irayo,
-Txonä Rolyu

[Txepä Tsyal]

Marking the syllables only will be definitely the clearest for comprehensive reading of the dictionary with only infix positional markers for compound words that might confuse beginners (it did me). Perhaps a / for syllabic separation and . for those few necessary infix positions? I think those two symbols are clear yet rather uncluncky without confusing the meaning of the breakups of the word like _ does (trying to read that just made my head hurt trying to keep it straight because the symbols are too similar and in the same general location while also _ made too large of a seperation in the words for clarity).

Yes, I think showing where the infixes are is an excellent idea! I often don't know where to put them and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd prefer having them with < (infix here) >

Irayo,
-Txonä Rolyu

Useful in the short run, but without them it would make for better practice right?
Honestly marking the infix positions in each word makes the whole thing cluttered and more difficult to understand. In my honest opinion, a Nian guidebook and an uncluttered Dictionary make a far better resource than a single document attempting to contain more information than what is needed.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I support the infixes appendix.

In this appendix you could use the <0>, <1> and <2> notation you were using in the inflections page (it's now not showing the position of the infixes) as well as giving a few examples such as causatives that people might not understand, unusual inferentials and a few examples of that pesky perfective.

[Tirea Aean]

I support the infixes appendix.

In this appendix you could use the <0>, <1> and <2> notation you were using in the inflections page (it's now not showing the position of the infixes) as well as giving a few examples such as causatives that people might not understand, unusual inferentials and a few examples of that pesky perfective.

AWESOME idea right there. ^^

[kewnya txamew'itan]

It makes it a bit more like a real foreign language dictionary too where you might have a set of verb tables at the back although if we're going to start including all of those sorts of appendixes we'd need to put summaries of half of NiaN in there which would be a bit silly. That said, it might be an idea to put all known idioms and set phrases in the dictionary too (lu Y Xru = X has Y, Y yawne lu Xru = X loves Y etc.)

[Taronyu]

I don't want to do an appendix for infix placement. It's not like they're weird or irregular. Also, it would make looking up verbs annoying, as you'd have to look in two places for all of the information.

I could, however, have an appendix of irregular verbs - but I don't really see a reason not to state that in the definition anyway.

Concerning phrases - that'd be more of a phrasebook, wouldn't it? I've included idiomatic expressions. I'm not seeking to make this a grammar, just a list of the irregularities in the lexicon.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

That's probably best, a comprehensive grammar would be a bit excessive for a dictionary. 

[Mrrvomun]

When I made my original post, I didn't mean that the appendix should have every word.  I thought that it should only have those irregular words that beginners would not know.  For example, I'd make the main entry for yomtìng look like this:

yom.tìng_ii: ["jomt.IN] _PF vin. feed (with dative object)
(c.w. from yom eat and tìng give)

with an entry in a new appendix looking something like this:

yom.t<1><2>ìng

The _ii in the main entry signifies that this word has irregular infix locations, which can be seen in the 'irregular infix appendix', for lack of a better term.  Of course, I don't care what notation you use, as long as it's clear that the word has irregular infix locations.

The main reason that I like an unobtrusive marker as opposed to the positions delimited within the word itself in the main entry is because when I look up a word in your dictionary, I like to look at it, say it, learn the meaning, put it in my flashcards, and THEN learn any exceptions related to the word.  I don't want to see the word all cluttered up the first time I look at it.  Also, I like my dictionary entries concise and short, so putting them inline with the rest of the entry seems too messy to me. 

Assuming we don't have any exceptions for the pre-first infix, I don't think you need to mark that one ever, though.

That's probably best, a comprehensive grammar would be a bit excessive for a dictionary. 

I agree, we have NiaN for that. 

[Taronyu]

Ok, go and look at the glottal section, again. I think that the mid-dot is fairly inobtrustive - however, what I could do is to make it like 'awstengyem, where I mark it, and then say (ii) for irregular infix. How does that work?