Why not ayharyu?

[GEOvanne]

In the Na'vi in a nutshell, on the subject of plurals, they say pizayu becomes ayfizayu or just fizayu.

But in then later in plural matching, they say Moe lu meharyu and Moe lu karyu is okay, but Moe lu ayharyu is not.

Anyways, if ayfizayu is ok, whats wrong with ayharyu?

[Muzer]

You're misunderstanding - ayharyu is legal on its own, but if you read the context it is used as a definition of a dual noun, which isn't legal (very roughly equivalent to saying I am teachers or We are teacher, though oddly enough the latter is actually allowed in Na'vi). I hope I've explained well.

[Pxia Säsngap]

I guess it would also be only haryu instead of ayharyu, because when lenition occurs you should want to drop the ay. Then again it isn't allowed to drop me or pxe, because then you couldn't understand how many teachers are meant anymore. So karyu=one teacher; meharyu=two teachers; pxeharyu=three teachers and haryu=many teachers(more than three). It is also correct to say ayharyu of course, but in my opinion this sounds very odd. Just like you said "many seventyfour teachers".  So, haryu k>h
It's the same with every word that changes with ay because of lenition, just like you said for example fizayu p>f, upxare ' is left out, puntil px>p, ketse kx>k, te'lan tx>t, sawtute t>s or sko ts>s.  

[Tsamsiyu92]

I guess it would also be only haryu instead of ayharyu, because when lenition occurs you should want to drop the ay. Then again it isn't allowed to drop me or pxe, because then you couldn't understand how many teachers are meant anymore. So karyu=one teacher; meharyu=two teachers; pxeharyu=three teachers and haryu=many teachers(more than three). It is also correct to say ayharyu of course, but in my opinion this sounds very odd. Just like you said "many seventyfour teachers".  So, haryu k>h
It's the same with every word that changes with ay because of lenition, just like you said for example fizayu p>f, upxare ' is left out, puntil px>p, ketse kx>k, te'lan tx>t, sawtute t>s or sko ts>s.  

However, when a me- or pxe-haryu are a predicative of a dual or trial pronoun or noun, like moe lu meharyu, then you can drop the me-/pxe-, but only then. You are not allowed to use ayharyu as a predicative for singular, dual or a trial noun.

Predicate = noun/adjective used after the verbs like lu to describe something.

Moe lu meharyu = allowed
Moe lu haryu = allowed, because it is obvious how many they are
Moe lu ayharyu = not allowed, because 2 persons can't be 4 or more teachers.

The underlines here are not to describe stress, but to emphasise the dual/trial/plural prefix.

[wm.annis]

However, when a me- or pxe-haryu are a predicative of a dual or trial pronoun or noun, like moe lu meharyu, then you can drop the me-/pxe-, but only then. You are not allowed to use ayharyu as a predicative for singular, dual or a trial noun.

I missed this.  Where has Frommer explained these rules to us?

[Pxia Säsngap]

However, when a me- or pxe-haryu are a predicative of a dual or trial pronoun or noun, like moe lu meharyu, then you can drop the me-/pxe-, but only then. You are not allowed to use ayharyu as a predicative for singular, dual or a trial noun.

I missed this.  Where has Frommer explained these rules to us?

Well, even if there wasn't a rule given about that, it's of course only logical and most effective, because the moe already transports the number. So, this would probably (if not said in a rule) develop to be allowed, then, because languages are always only the most effective version to express something(that's also the reason in some languages for leaving out pronouns when it's obvious by the suffix (or similar things)).
So, I'd say that it's at least logical and maybe also in a rule, ma Tsamsiyu92? Secounded wm.annis's question.

[wm.annis]

So, this would probably (if not said in a rule) develop to be allowed, then, because languages are always only the most effective version to express something

Let me assure you, with 100% confidence, that languages absolutely do not operate this way.  There are multiple influences and pressures on a language, and perfect efficiency is rarely one of those goals.  In fact, there is good reason to believe a certain amount of redundancy is a greater asset to a spoken language than is efficiency.  Language happens in a noisy medium — a little redundancy gives you more reliable transmission of your message.

[omängum fra'uti]

Also, there is no such guideline I'm aware of that "ay" SHOULD be dropped when it can be.  And there are cases (After ADP+) that it probably should not for clarity.

[Pxia Säsngap]

Also, there is no such guideline I'm aware of that "ay" SHOULD be dropped when it can be.  And there are cases (After ADP+) that it probably should not for clarity.

Of course there is no guideline. That wasn't what I wanted to say. I just wanted to express that it is more efficient to drop it.

And ma wm.annis, of course there are more influences on a language than that, but it is a very important one. If you look at how languages developped over the centuries, you can totally find many changes for efficiency reasons, and this would/will also happen to Na'vi as well. That's why I mentioned it.

[Tsamsiyu92]

However, when a me- or pxe-haryu are a predicative of a dual or trial pronoun or noun, like moe lu meharyu, then you can drop the me-/pxe-, but only then. You are not allowed to use ayharyu as a predicative for singular, dual or a trial noun.

I missed this.  Where has Frommer explained these rules to us?

I think I read it in the Na'vi in a Nutshell guide.

[wm.annis]

And ma wm.annis, of course there are more influences on a language than that, but it is a very important one. If you look at how languages developped over the centuries, you can totally find many changes for efficiency reasons,

And I can find just as many — if not more — historical changes that have nothing at all to do with efficiency.  And where is this efficiency?  One set of changes may cause confusion, which sets in motion new changes in other parts of the language to fix ambiguities earlier changes have caused.

My main point is that efficiency is not even an important goal of language.  Sometimes you get something one could argue is more efficient from some set of changes, but that's rarely the origin of any particular change.  Besides, it's not at all clear how one measures "efficiency" in a a language.

[Pxia Säsngap]

Ma wm.annis efficiency is totally important in the development of languages. Look for example at how many cases Latin had got, but Italian(which is as you know the language which is mostly connected to Latin) has only got a few ones. It's the same with languages that are still spoken today: For example the difference between Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese. In Brazil they have less pronouns, which means less forms to learn. In Portugal they still have the "original" pronouns but tend to develop to the same as in Brazil, because it's "easier".
But efficiency doesn't only mean that it has to be easy, but also that it's more and more possible to express more complex and difficult things and facts. And if it's then possible to make it easy/easier it will probably become correct to express it in the easy way - within many years.
Also German experiences such a development at the moment. Grammatically correct are four cases, but if you speak to someone almost nobody uses one special case(genitive) anymore but another one(dative) instead of the "correct" case. Sooner or later this will be also set in the rules for the language so that there are only three cases sometime, even if today it is colloquial speech to speak like that. That's what I meant about efficiency. People are lazy and don't want to use too complex grammar, so it developes that way. And if you look at different languages you'll find out, that almost all changes are attributable to the fact that the new form had been more efficient.

But, ma wm.annis, I don't think we should get deeper into that topic because, except for it being some kind of Off-Topic, you could totally argue against my statements. I guess it's just about how you define efficiency and which aspects of a language and its development you attach value to.

[wm.annis]

But, ma wm.annis, I don't think we should get deeper into that topic because, except for it being some kind of Off-Topic, you could totally argue against my statements. I guess it's just about how you define efficiency and which aspects of a language and its development you attach value to.

No, it's not about which aspects I attach value to, it's about what the evidence tells us.  That the western Romance languages ditched grammatical case for now is only a single piece of evidence.  I assure you, some modern languages are currently creating case systems for themselves.  One language in the Northwest US, Dakelh, is creating a new grammatical gender as we speak.  Even English is increasing irregularity in itself.  Once, the past tense of "sneak" was regular, "sneaked."  But over the past few decades a new and irregular form, "snuck," has gained the upper hand.

Without context, this is off-topic.  It becomes on-topic if we're going to use this undefined notion of "efficiency" to justify making up rules for Na'vi in areas Frommer hasn't yet made statements.

[Muzer]

Also, many people (including me, as I happen to like the sound of it ), intentionally or not, have been bringing back the archaic past-participle "gotten" (compare "I get, I got, I have got" with "I get, I got, I have gotten" - which one is more efficient is easy to see).

[Kì'eyawn]

Also, many people (including me, as I happen to like the sound of it ), intentionally or not, have been bringing back the archaic past-participle "gotten" (compare "I get, I got, I have got" with "I get, I got, I have gotten" - which one is more efficient is easy to see).

Wow, shows how out of the loop i am.  I didn't know "gotten" was archaic; i thought "i have got" was bad English.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Also, many people (including me, as I happen to like the sound of it ), intentionally or not, have been bringing back the archaic past-participle "gotten" (compare "I get, I got, I have got" with "I get, I got, I have gotten" - which one is more efficient is easy to see).

Wow, shows how out of the loop i am.  I didn't know "gotten" was archaic; i thought "i have got" was bad English.

In AmE it's the norm and "I got" is, as you say, often considered bad English, in BrE, gotten is either considered wrong, an Americanism or Archaic (there are quite a few Americanisms that are more archaic than the equivalent British phrase).

[Pxia Säsngap]

No, it's not about which aspects I attach value to, it's about what the evidence tells us.  That the western Romance languages ditched grammatical case for now is only a single piece of evidence.  I assure you, some modern languages are currently creating case systems for themselves.  One language in the Northwest US, Dakelh, is creating a new grammatical gender as we speak.  Even English is increasing irregularity in itself.  Once, the past tense of "sneak" was regular, "sneaked."  But over the past few decades a new and irregular form, "snuck," has gained the upper hand.

You have just not understood what I was trying to say about efficiency. The development does not have to make it easier to be for efficiency reasons. That's at least how I define it.
Well, I don't know this new grammatical gender, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason for creating it. This fact(that there's probably a reason for it) shows the need of efficiency in a language. You're surely expressing a new thing with it(something there isn't a word for until now), so it's a need to have that new word where they use it. That's again efficiency, because this also includes that languages will make you able to express more and complex things, and it's only easier if there is a way to make it easier.
And then there is also a logical background for sneaked becoming snuck, because when you compare how they are pronounced it is much easier to say snuck instead of sneaked.

Of course I can't really prove it, but that's again the reason for me telling you we shouldn't speak about it anymore. noone can prove any statement in this discussion. I will always find aspects of efficiency in your examples and you will always find arguments that disagree with what I've said. So...  

[Muzer]

Researching it more, I think it depends on where you live...

[Pxia Säsngap]

Researching it more, I think it depends on where you live...

What? 

[Muzer]

Whether it's archaic or the norm.