New word - tsawlultxa

[Tirea Aean]

A message from our good friend Kì'eyawn (correct me if I'm wrong about the name):

Ma Tirea Aean,

I thought you should know Karyu Pawl gave us a new word in the context of his talk this morning: tsawlultxa (accent on last syllable) for "conference". Spread the word!

[Kemaweyan]

Txantsan, irayo

Though I'd like tsawltxa awlul ke sunu oer

[Kamean]

I prefer Kemaweyan's variant.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Ah, we now have a Na'vi word to describe the soon-to-come AvatarMeet!

[Swoka Swizaw]

And what is the pronunciation of this word? I have presented issue with the way that some people pronounce certain words...

In the dictionary, this word is pronounced [tsawl.ul.'txa]. I have always had reason to believe that a word like this should be [tsaw.lul.'txa]. Can someone please show me why so many think the first example is correct? Another example, for anyone who needs it is: nì'i'a, [nì.''i'.a]. Why is it NOT [nì.''i.'a]? Can anyone give evidence that Frommer has given on this?

[Plumps]

I think this is, because it's a compound in which every element is distinctively present ... so one would say tsawla ultxa > tsawl-ultxa > tsawlultxa ...
Again, in fast speech this would prabably merge so completely together that it will sound like tsaw.lul.txa, you are right in that.

Another example, for anyone who needs it is: nì'i'a, [nì.''i'.a]. Why is it NOT [nì.''i.'a]? Can anyone give evidence that Frommer has given on this?

I finally found where it was stated. Look at the first time 'i'a was introduced

[Blue Elf]

Well, clear rules how to break any word into syllables we are missing.

[Swoka Swizaw]

I finally found where it was stated. Look at the first time 'i'a was introduced

Yes...and on there is the word 'engeng, separated into syllables ['eng.eng]. Why not ['e.ngeng]? I think it was a mistake, amongst others presented. I also feel that many look at kxangangang for a universal example here, which has a structure of [kxang.ang.ang]. I recall Frommer had said that this was the only word that utilized this particular form.

Well, clear rules how to break any word into syllables we are missing.

I think it's pretty clear (but not Frommer-canon, regardless I thought it was)...

A syllable is (f, s, ts)(C)V(C). A syllable can be a single vowel, but will assimilate with a consonant if one precedes it, like in nì'i'a, [nì.'i.'a]. Would "fun", tì'o', be [tì'.o']? I don't think so, but would be [tì.'o']. I imagine there was a time when everyone knew this. Can anyone find that Frommer reference?

[Plumps]

And why is that so important, I wonder

It was hinted at in the Language Log and is stated in Horen § 2.1.4.2

Your example of tì'o' is not logical because the base word is 'o' here ... if you make this into an attributive it becomes 'o'a or a'o' both retaining, I'd say, the base word as 'o'.a and a.'o'

Again, I stress that in a spoken language this is of fairly minor importance. Stress and in case of verbs infix positions are far more important. And even in writing (unless you want to develop a program that does automatic syllabification...) I think it doesn't matter.

[Yawne Zize’ite]

Again, I stress that in a spoken language this is of fairly minor importance. Stress and in case of verbs infix positions are far more important. And even in writing (unless you want to develop a program that does automatic syllabification...) I think it doesn't matter.[/size][/font]

Actually, automatic syllabification is important for good automatic hyphenation. (Thanks to the vagaries of the Na'vi alphabet, it would also be helpful for a special-purpose sorting program; truly correct Na'vi sorting cannot be integrated into ordinary word processing programs.)

[Swoka Swizaw]

And why is that so important, I wonder

To be honest, I am genuinely anal-retentive that way. And, to be sure, I am not trying to be a bother. I suppose I just like the uniformity of the [(f,s,ts)(C)V(C).(f,s,ts)(C)V(C)] word structure. If the first syllable in that example form ends in a consonant and the second a vowel, is it not logical that they should fuse to make a CV(C) syllable? I defer to Frommer's rule that a word ending in a consonant that is, then, followed by a vowel fuses with that vowel.

Like in the sentence: Fìtrr, oe ke tsun ivängeyk tsampongut; nì'it 'efu spxin.
I imagine a uniform syllabification would look like this: [fì.'trr.'o.e.ke.tsu.ni.vä.'ngeyk.tsam.'po.ngut.nì.''it.''e.fu.spxin]

I am certain I am being a bit of a pest, oer txoa livu, but I do feel passionate about this, about Na'vi.

[Plumps]

I am certain I am being a bit of a pest, oer txoa livu, but I do feel passionate about this, about Na'vi.

nothing wrong with that I know the feeling because in some instances and with some issues I feel the same

[Blue Elf]

And why is that so important, I wonder

This I can imagine just two cases where syllabification is needed to know:
- infix positions. No problem - it is located always before vowel
- when after putting infix into verb you get prohibited syllable: infamous zenke + <ats>, see this thread. Although "tske" is allowed, "zenatske" is prohibited. (pak! But I learned how to live with this rule )

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Didn't I read someplace that Na'vi was for the most part 'maximal onset' in terms of syllabification?

[Yawne Zize’ite]

That's what the dictionary uses to syllabify words whose syllabification has never been stated.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I strongly suspect the syllabification in the dictionary has all been hand entered.