lenition???

[kewnya txamew'itan]

If you think Na'vi is gratuitously complicated, try learning a real language. 

Seriously though, Na'vi has a grammar that is insanely simple compared to a lot of real languages, a short plural isn't gratuitously complicated, just the sort of thing that would probably develop of its own accord anyway as the language evolved (keep in mind that ay- is the only known leniting prefix that doesn't have a true consonant in it).

Also, mì (in) causes lenition but isn't a prefix so doesn't attach.

[wm.annis]

This is the kind of gratuitously complicated rule that can quickly turn a language irritating for me.

Gratuitously complicated.  Huh.  I invite you to contemplate the Navajo verb.

[Erimeyz]

Also, mì (in) causes lenition but isn't a prefix so doesn't attach.

... did I get it wrong above?

  - Eri

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Oops, I thought you'd left it out. No you're correct.

[donjoe]

Gratuitously complicated.  Huh.  I invite you to contemplate the Navajo verb.

Yes, gratuitously complicated. "Aysmukan" has very clear meaning. Shorting it back to "smukan" only hurts comprehensibility for no good reason.
And just because there are other instances and/or other languages where things like these happen, it doesn't mean it isn't a kind of gratuitous complication that hurts comprehensibility.

[Doolio]

yes, but if you know the rule and if you know the meaning of "tsmukan", why would the dropped plural affix hurt comprehensibility? i mean, "tsmukan" and "smukan" are clearly not the same word phonetically. english plural is made by adding one-letter suffix, so english plural and singular forms are differentiated by only one sound, same as in na'vi. for me, this na'vi optional rule only enrichens the language without complicating it, as you can choose which way to say something as you see fit.

[donjoe]

yes, but if you know the rule and if you know the meaning of "tsmukan", why would the dropped plural affix hurt comprehensibility?

Because the main rule is that plurals should begin with ay-. Any irregularities from this simpe general rule complicate matters unnecessarily.

Anyway, it is what it is and I'm free to dislike it, I think.

[Will Txankamuse]

Because the main rule is that plurals should begin with ay-. Any irregularities from this simpe general rule complicate matters unnecessarily.

I'll be sure to contact the persons that created Na'vi and complain, I'm sure many childs and mans were involved, but I will still fight with my tooths and foots to complain about this!

Will

[donjoe]

Be as ridiculous as you like, funny man. Your example is not of a constructed language at its moment of birth (when any rule can be adopted or thrown out), so it has nothing to do with what I said.

[wm.annis]

Your example is not of a constructed language at its moment of birth (when any rule can be adopted or thrown out),

The rule has been used in a movie making buckets of cash, seen by 100s of millions of people.  I rather doubt the rule is going to be thrown out at this point.

If you desire such regularity in a language, there is always Esperanto or Lojban.

[suomichris]

Your example is not of a constructed language at its moment of birth (when any rule can be adopted or thrown out),

The rule has been used in a movie making buckets of cash, seen by 100s of millions of people.  I rather doubt the rule is going to be thrown out at this point.

If you desire such regularity in a language, there is always Esperanto or Lojban.

Or, for that matter, Klingon, which feels completely artificial because of it's complete lack of these kinds of features...

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Be as ridiculous as you like, funny man. Your example is not of a constructed language at its moment of birth (when any rule can be adopted or thrown out), so it has nothing to do with what I said.

The thing is that Frommer wasn't trying to create a language that had just been created, he was trying to create a language that felt like it had existed for a long time, because of this Na'vi needs to have irregularities, personally I think Frommer failed because there are far too few irregular things in the language.

[suomichris]

The thing is that Frommer wasn't trying to create a language that had just been created, he was trying to create a language that felt like it had existed for a long time, because of this Na'vi needs to have irregularities, personally I think Frommer failed because there are far too few irregular things in the language.

I don't think he failed at all!  First, we don't have a sense of all of the irregularities yet, not to mention that the case-marking allomorphs have been driving us nuts!!  Second, I'm sure that Na'vi will end up having less irregularity than any natural language, but as far as I can tell, people tend to AVOID ANY irregularity when making a conlang, so the fact that Frommer did it in the first place means he succeeded to some extent.

And.... I dunno, I guess I am just speaking impressionistically, but the kinds of irregularities we see "feel" like the kinds of things that languages actually do--the pronominal forms, for example, certainly seem like they've gone through changes and developed unique, idiosyncratic features.  Na'vi certainly looks to me like it has plausible historical depth.

[Erimeyz]

personally I think Frommer failed because there are far too few irregular things in the language.

I'm sure he has a few things up his sleeve...

 - Eri

[suomichris]

... personally I think Frommer failed because there are far too few irregular things in the language.

I might also note that not all natural languages are as rife with irregularity as English and other Indo-European.  Finnish, for example, has a whole slew of case markers, but the system is basically regular, save for a few words.  Likewise with the verbs: There are one, maybe two, irregular verbs in Finnish; everything else fits a nice little pattern Now, those patterns are kind of complicated, but they do work pretty much everywhere.  Nahuatl is rather like this, too.

[wm.annis]

Nahuatl is rather like this, too.

And somehow I pick Ancient Greek... and Navajo.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I hadn't considered that Western languages were particularly bad, the only languages I've had much exposure to at all are English, French and Spanish.

[suomichris]

... and Navajo.

Actually, I hadnʼt thought about how Athabaskan languages are, despite the complete opaqueness of the system, actually pretty systematic...  Kind of.

I think Athabaskan just needs its own, separate subfield, to be thought of on its own terms, so it doesnʼt frell up our analyses of what we think languages ought to do :p

[donjoe]

The rule has been used in a movie making buckets of cash, seen by 100s of millions of people.

Of course, but I was comparing it to the ideal language for information exchange between rational sentient beings, not to the ideal language for cashing in loads of money by making it "feel real" to humans living at this point in history.

I rather doubt the rule is going to be thrown out at this point.

Of course not at this point. I was questioning the decision made when it was created, which wasn't all that long ago.

If you desire such regularity in a language, there is always Esperanto or Lojban.

Yes, and it's too bad neither of them has become the language of the Internet (and thereby possibly the language of the World in a foreseeable future).

[SanguineEpitaph]

I rather doubt the rule is going to be thrown out at this point.

Of course not at this point. I was questioning the decision made when it was created, which wasn't all that long ago.

Well, the language was started around 2004-5-ish and just recently finished up for the movie....I would say that it's fairly old now...

Just throwing that out there.