History of tsaw

Started by NeotrekkerZ, May 07, 2010, 06:31:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NeotrekkerZ

So, most of this we know, but here's some further info about all the tsa and tsa'u forms (courtesy of Frommer of course):

Quote from: FrommerTsa isn't used by itself. Like fì-, it's only a prefix: tsatute 'that person,' tsakilvan 'that river.'

Tsa'u and tsaw ARE used alone--they're pronouns, meaning 'that thing' or just 'it.' And they're used interchangeably. (There's no form tsau.)

There are other such pairs as well. For example, the object form of 'that thing' or 'it' is either tsa'ut(i) or tsat.

And about that w:

Quote from: FrommerWell, the development of tsaw from tsa'u is as follows:

In fast speech, the glottal stop was likely to drop, yielding tsau. The -au- combination then quickly turned into a diphthong. That is,

tsa'u > tsau > tsaw

(Note that au > aw did not happen with the word for drum, au, which retains two syllables.)

That said, the other forms don't have the diphthong. So it's tsal, tsat(i), tsar(u), not *tsawl, *tsawt, *tsawr. In other words, these forms have gone one step further, losing the diphthong: aw > a.

All of that, I think, is pretty natural.

What I also take away from all this is that the tsane which we use with the "where" conjunction tsengit a is a contraction of tsawne.

Irayo K. Pawl!
Rìk oe lu hufwemì, nìn fya'ot a oe tswayon!

Ftiafpi

ahhhh, so one can't use simply tsa. Good to know.

Kemaweyan

Irayo. Oe kawkrr ke tsamun tslilvam tìketengit mìkam pxelì'u a san tsa sìk, san tsa'u sìk, sì san tsaw sìk :) Ulte ke amomängum pelì'ut nìeyawr oe zene sivar. Set oer tsaw law lu ;) Irayo nìmun :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

roger

#3
Don't we have seyä attested? And sawä? Is one of these incorrect?

Kì'eyawn

Fì'upxareri ta awngeyä karyu ngaru irayo seiyi oe, ma Neo.  Fì'u oeru srung sivi nìtxan.
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

Lance R. Casey

Quote from: roger on May 07, 2010, 11:43:50 PM
Don't we have seyä attested? And sawä? Is one of these incorrect?
We do:

Tengkrr palulukan moene kxll sarmi, poltxe Neytiril aylì'ut a frakrr 'ok seyä layu oer.

With this new info -- which partly contradicts this regarding "the other forms" -- it seems like *sawä is indeed incorrect, but that *tsa'uä/*sa'uä would be kosher.

Quote from: NeotrekkerZ on May 07, 2010, 06:31:52 PM
What I also take away from all this is that the tsane which we use with the "where" conjunction tsengit a is a contraction of tsawne.
Yeah, it also seems that whenever tsaw gets suffixed, by case endings or not, monophthongization occurs.

// Lance R. Casey

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: Lance R. Casey on May 09, 2010, 05:41:18 AM
Yeah, it also seems that whenever tsaw gets suffixed, by case endings or not, monophthongization occurs.
That sounds like something that should be listed as a side effect to some medication.

May cause monophthongization in some patience, contact your doctor and discontinue taking the medication if it lasts more than a few hours.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Prrton

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on May 09, 2010, 05:56:19 AM
Quote from: Lance R. Casey on May 09, 2010, 05:41:18 AM
Yeah, it also seems that whenever tsaw gets suffixed, by case endings or not, monophthongization occurs.
That sounds like something that should be listed as a side effect to some medication.

May cause monophthongization in some patience, contact your doctor and *discontinue taking the medication if it lasts more than a few hours.

*Slä rä'ä ftang ftivia lì'fyati leNa'vi kawkrr.  ;)

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Lance R. Casey on May 09, 2010, 05:41:18 AM
Yeah, it also seems that whenever tsaw gets suffixed, by case endings or not, monophthongization occurs.

Dang! I knew there was at least one word missing that should have been on the LEP 'A' list  :D

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

NeotrekkerZ

QuoteWith this new info -- which partly contradicts this regarding "the other forms" -- it seems like *sawä  is indeed incorrect, but that *tsa'uä/*sa'uä would be kosher.

That's interesting that he gives tsawri as a possibility in the quote in that link.  I specifically asked him about those endings, so I guess he's now decided against it.

Monophthongization...much cooler sounding than contraction.  :)
Rìk oe lu hufwemì, nìn fya'ot a oe tswayon!

Plumps

I thought this whole discussion was settled with William's Cheat Sheet and with Frommer's replies on it and the "Declension of tsaw"

tsaw, tsal, tseyä, tsaru, tsat, tsari

From the example that Lance has given above the plural forms seem to be lenited.

Am I missing a crucial point here? When did we get confused again? :P

NeotrekkerZ

I was always confused about whether we could have tsa by itself.  Our first quote from Frommer about it (combining our efforts I) had tsa listed by itself as "it."  Then I wasn't sure whether you had to drop the w or if it was just an option.  Like I said, most of it we knew from before, but now at least we know concretely which forms of each version are allowed.
Rìk oe lu hufwemì, nìn fya'ot a oe tswayon!

roger

Paul had earlier given "tsawl" etc. as forms alongside "tsal", so it appeared that there were two words, "tsa" 'it' and "tsa'u ~ tsaw" 'that'. The language is still being developed, and one of the worries Paul had about describing it publicly would be getting locked into things he later decided he didn't like. (There are a handful of words which haven't been released yet for that very reason.) So I have no problem with him releasing what he has and then changing his mind on some points. Better that than him keeping it confidential until he's satisfied that it's finished -- in 2015 or so.

Kì'eyawn

Oe mllte, ma Roger.  I can certainly abide the Na'vi language shifting a bit under our feet, rather than us having nothing to stand on at all.
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...