20 Questions: Exiles?

[omängum fra'uti]

Given that Na'vi seem to be very family oriented, for example calling each other brother or sister, and having very close connections to their clans...  Are Na'vi ever exiled from their clans, or are there any nomadic Na'vi?

Would such a Na'vi to exist, how would it effect their attitudes, and their ties to Eywa?

On a related note, aside from exile, what sort of punishments do the Na'vi have?  Cutting of the queue would seem of course like the ultimate punishment, and a true exile from everything.  Do the Na'vi do this as punishment, or is it more done as a threat to keep people in line?  Is there other forms of bodily mutilation that is used as punishment?  Maybe for children something along the lines of being grounded?

[Keylstxatsmen]

Given that Na'vi seem to be very family oriented, for example calling each other brother or sister, and having very close connections to their clans...  Are Na'vi ever exiled from their clans, or are there any nomadic Na'vi?

Would such a Na'vi to exist, how would it effect their attitudes, and their ties to Eywa?

Interesting!  I could see a line of questioning about the law system of the Na'vi, what sort of punishments (they look like they aren't above cutting someone's queue off) be it exile from the clan or whatever, how they adjudicate things, what is against there laws if they have them (no dreamwalkers at hometree for starters).   

The second part could be wrapped into another section about the Na'vi clans in general.  We see at least three "races" -- forest, cliffs (sea), and plains -- in the movie and tons of smaller clans are mentioned.

-Keyl

[omängum fra'uti]

I've got some friends who had some really good questions, I'm retrying to remember some more.

[wm.annis]

In the film, at one point Jake says he's "in the place the eye cannot see."  That's sure not an expression I've heard in English.  Sounds like exile to me.

[Kì'eyawn]

Related to the punishment of having one's queue cut off:  We should ask if there's a word for this.  It's probably derived from whatever the word is for the actual queue (compare "scalping"), but i suspect this is something Karyu Pawl won't be able to answer without Cameron's benediction first.

[Alìm Tsamsiyu]

In the film, at one point Jake says he's "in the place the eye cannot see."  That's sure not an expression I've heard in English.  Sounds like exile to me.

Yes that's exactly what I was thinking.  (Interestingly enough there must be some kind of "law-vibe" going around our brains if you check out the word list I just posted, lol).

I think there would definitely be "loner-Na'vi," that are nomadic roamers.  Perhaps even clans of roamers might exist, but without a doubt nomads would.  In this case then, maybe a word for "Nomad" could make it into our vocab list?

On another related note - it seems like we'd need words for judgment and punishment as well.  I like the idea of "bilingual with holes in it" for sending these 20 questions to Frommer/Cameron.

[Skyinou]

Hoping they don't need laws....

About cutting the queue: according to the script, one who has his cut off just want to die. So it's the same as death punishment.
And for people living in this dangerous world, any kind of physical punishment is a increasing his chances to die. (except small punishment for kid)

Thinking that punishment exist (are common) is assuming that Na'vi will do something that deserve that. I think that's not the case.
If no, Na'vi wouldn't be really better than us.
"They don't even have a word for lie"
That implies that even when they do something "wrong", they will not hide it, and so they have only the option of trying to put it right, or maybe, as said first, leaving.

Not sure a Na'vi can survive alone. Remember Pandora is not a kind lovely moon.

[Alìm Tsamsiyu]

Na'vi are very resourceful and hard to kill - the Earth isn't a kind lovely place either but there were/are still plenty of nomads.

I doubt very severely that there wouldn't be Na'vi venturing off alone - be it due to exile or whatever reason.

Punishment is also likely - a world without laws and punishment for breaking those laws is chaos.  Even if there aren't any "written laws" (so to speak... "official laws" might work better) there are still standards that Na'vi must abide by, and punishments when those standards are violated.

I think it may be likely, as you said, that they would leave/be exiled upon committing some grave crime against the clan (like killing another member of the clan needlessly, or maybe even killing animals of Pandora needlessly [since Neytìri was very upset about the aynantang she had to kill because of Jake.)]

[Skyinou]

Punishment is also likely - a world without laws and punishment for breaking those laws is chaos.  Even if there aren't any "written laws" (so to speak... "official laws" might work better) there are still standards that Na'vi must abide by, and punishments when those standards are violated.

That's so "human-thinking", I disagree strongly. Of course, it's for Cameron to decide, but just try to imagine people who honestly feel bad when doing something wrong. Wrong refering here to the way of Eywa, not a Na'vi-oriented set of laws. Why making it a standard that we can/want to take advantage from others?
I believe Neytiri is not upset because she will take a punishment for saving him (I know it's not what you mean, but the result is the same), but really that she feels sad for them. She knows she should not have killed them, if it was not because of a sign from Eywa. Then why would they need law, if Na'vi just don't do "bad" things? Once again, it's up to Cameron to say what is "bad" for a Na'vi exactly, and it is an interesting question too.

And yes, I'm dreaming... But isn't it the whole thing about Avatar? Dreaming, and wanting this dream come true? 

Just imagine   

Spoiler

Listen to "imagine"! A great song by the way!

[omängum fra'uti]

Well if the Na'vi never did "bad" things, there would never be war between clans.  And while it is rare, it's not because they don't do bad things, it's merely because they aren't pressured by a lack of resources.

[Keylstxatsmen]

Well if the Na'vi never did "bad" things, there would never be war between clans.  And while it is rare, it's not because they don't do bad things, it's merely because they aren't pressured by a lack of resources.

Also they have the word "forbidden", so there must be some sort of rules, srak?

-Keyl

[omängum fra'uti]

Speaking of which, why do they have a word "Demon"?  I'd love to know that one too.

[Erimeyz]

Also they have the word "forbidden", so there must be some sort of rules, srak?

They also have the word "rule".  That's kind of a give-away right there.

  - Eri

[Kì'eyawn]

If there were no need for punishment, the Omatikaya wouldn't have already had that...thing that they tied Jake and Grace to before the attack on Hometree.  And, i'm sorry, but i hate that "they had no word for lie" thing, and am thrilled it got taken out of the script.  Maybe it's my Earth-zoology knowledge, but i cannot fathom the idea of an intelligent social species evolving without some amount of deception and betrayal (call that rule-breaking if you like).  The Na'vi certainly are honorable, but we all have our moments of weakness.

[Skyinou]

They also have the word "rule".  That's kind of a give-away right there.

Of course, there are things that you do and others that you dont' do. But rules and laws are very different in my POV.
Laws are rules made for and by people to maintain a society which wouldn't work without. (example: our own society)
Rules alone are things you should do and not do, but if you basically respect all those given by Eywa/nature/and what you can imagine, you don't need law.
Laws come with a corresponding punishment. Rules don't.

If there were no need for punishment, the Omatikaya wouldn't have already had that...thing that they tied Jake and Grace to before the attack on Hometree.

Good point

And, i'm sorry, but i hate that "they had no word for lie" thing, and am thrilled it got taken out of the script.  Maybe it's my Earth-zoology knowledge, but i cannot fathom the idea of an intelligent social species evolving without some amount of deception and betrayal (call that rule-breaking if you like).  The Na'vi certainly are honorable, but we all have our moments of weakness.

Ok, so for you the Na'vi (and the film Avatar) are just about tree-lovers people? 
If not, the point is not about the possibility of rule-breaking, but the frequency. If it happen once in a while, you don't need laws and punishment, you need designed people to choose that.
As you said, "thing that they tied Jake and Grace": Eytukan give the order. So apparently the power and maybe choice comes from him only. And that's part of the question too: is he the only one with "power".

The Na'vi certainly are honorable, but we all have our moments of weakness.

Maybe, but you don't need to go off the rules* for that. Example: Tsu'tey attacking Jake. Note that nobody except Neytiri react against him.
*Once again, IF right, we need Na'vi rules, not ours.

[Keylstxatsmen]

They also have the word "rule".  That's kind of a give-away right there.

Of course, there are things that you do and others that you dont' do. But rules and laws are very different in my POV.
Laws are rules made for and by people to maintain a society which wouldn't work without. (example: our own society)
Rules alone are things you should do and not do, but if you basically respect all those given by Eywa/nature/and what you can imagine, you don't need law.
Laws come with a corresponding punishment. Rules don't.

If there were no need for punishment, the Omatikaya wouldn't have already had that...thing that they tied Jake and Grace to before the attack on Hometree.

Good point

And, i'm sorry, but i hate that "they had no word for lie" thing, and am thrilled it got taken out of the script.  Maybe it's my Earth-zoology knowledge, but i cannot fathom the idea of an intelligent social species evolving without some amount of deception and betrayal (call that rule-breaking if you like).  The Na'vi certainly are honorable, but we all have our moments of weakness.

Ok, so for you the Na'vi (and the film Avatar) are just about tree-lovers people? 
If not, the point is not about the possibility of rule-breaking, but the frequency. If it happen once in a while, you don't need laws and punishment, you need designed people to choose that.
As you said, "thing that they tied Jake and Grace": Eytukan give the order. So apparently the power and maybe choice comes from him only. And that's part of the question too: is he the only one with "power".

The Na'vi certainly are honorable, but we all have our moments of weakness.

Maybe, but you don't need to go off the rules* for that. Example: Tsu'tey attacking Jake. Note that nobody except Neytiri react against him.
*Once again, IF right, we need Na'vi rules, not ours.

Actually you do make some good points, they definately have rules, but they may not have "laws" with corresponding punishments (a "code of law" usually only comes will cultures that can write things down, srak?).  There are some other things in the script though, like Neytiri telling Tsu'tey in the instance you mention that it is not a proper challenge, that makes me think JC has some ideas for at least the ritualized part of Na'vi "rules".

Also, to respond to tigermind, I'd guess that many things about Na'vi culture that didn't make it into the final cut of the movie are still true in JC's mind, but I don't know if we will be able to sort it all out with these questions. 

-Keyl

[Kì'eyawn]

They also have the word "rule".  That's kind of a give-away right there.

Of course, there are things that you do and others that you dont' do. But rules and laws are very different in my POV.
Laws are rules made for and by people to maintain a society which wouldn't work without. (example: our own society)
Rules alone are things you should do and not do, but if you basically respect all those given by Eywa/nature/and what you can imagine, you don't need law.
Laws come with a corresponding punishment. Rules don't.

If there were no need for punishment, the Omatikaya wouldn't have already had that...thing that they tied Jake and Grace to before the attack on Hometree.

Good point

And, i'm sorry, but i hate that "they had no word for lie" thing, and am thrilled it got taken out of the script.  Maybe it's my Earth-zoology knowledge, but i cannot fathom the idea of an intelligent social species evolving without some amount of deception and betrayal (call that rule-breaking if you like).  The Na'vi certainly are honorable, but we all have our moments of weakness.

Ok, so for you the Na'vi (and the film Avatar) are just about tree-lovers people? 

I'm not sure what you mean, ma Skyinou.  Quite the opposite; i think trying to make the Na'vi out to be an eternally peaceful, nature-loving, honorable people is just an extension of the "noble savage" myth, and i find it irritating and offensive.  The Na'vi certainly deserve our respect and admiration for the way they seem to deal with each other and--especially--the rest of the living world around them, but this notion that they are just so terribly noble and honorable that the very thought of lying is absent from their worldview is...  Well, i wrote about this already here, so i won't take up too much space in this thread to do so again.

If not, the point is not about the possibility of rule-breaking, but the frequency. If it happen once in a while, you don't need laws and punishment, you need designed people to choose that.
As you said, "thing that they tied Jake and Grace": Eytukan give the order. So apparently the power and maybe choice comes from him only. And that's part of the question too: is he the only one with "power".

The Na'vi certainly are honorable, but we all have our moments of weakness.

Maybe, but you don't need to go off the rules* for that. Example: Tsu'tey attacking Jake. Note that nobody except Neytiri react against him.
*Once again, IF right, we need Na'vi rules, not ours.

I don't know if i'm understanding you correctly (and if so, ngaru tsap'alute si oe), but i think we mostly agree here.  I would think it's understood that by definition social creatures have social norms--we'll call those "rules"--an unspoken understanding about what you should and should not do.  And then, also something i would expect in any social species, what you can and cannot do greatly varies depending on the power you wield within the group.  Whether the Na'vi have codified "laws," and how they've agreed upon them, is a question for James Cameron.  Personally, i don't expect "laws" as we think of them, but certainly one could say that the Olo'eyktan is certainly in a position to set the rules ("I have said no dreamwalker may come here"), and i'm sure separate clans have, let's say, "agreements" between them.  So, on this point, i wholeheartedly agree with Keyl.  I do think that much of what never made it into the movie nonetheless is true; but i will stand by my assertion that whole "they had no word for 'lie' " thing was inane, and i don't miss it.

I apologize if i've derailed this thread somehow; it was not my intent.  Eywa ayngahu, ma smuk.

[Alìm Tsamsiyu]

Rules alone are things you should do and not do, but if you basically respect all those given by Eywa/nature/and what you can imagine, you don't need law.
Laws come with a corresponding punishment. Rules don't.

This statement makes absolutely no sense to me.  Name for me a rule that you were taught that you didn't first receive at least some type of punishment before fully understanding and obeying.

This may not be corporal punishment, but psychological or verbal punishment is still punishment

When you are very young your parents usually convey the "social norms" (basically rules that have no written punishment) by telling you things like "picking your nose in public is gross and rude,"  "talking with your mouth full is rude," etc.  While these have no direct punishment that is immediately apparent, your social image would begin to deteriorate.  People would begin to associate you with rude/gross actions and judge you based on that association.  This could be considered "psychological punishment."  While you aren't judged and punished according to some codified system of laws, society punishes that behavior all the same.

We see this sort of "society based punishment" when Jake is walking around like an idiot when everyone is sitting around the fire eating.  Everyone looks at him, well, like he's a skxawng.  If he continued this disruptive and abrasive behavior, society would've continued to think of him as a skxawng.

Sure, with this view, there may not be a word for punishment (the apparatus mentioned previously that they tied Jake and Grace to comes to mind), but there would then most definitely be words for "rude or unacceptable behavior," as well as words for "people who engage in said behavior," likely expanding to "people of ill-repute."  These aren't far stretches from "renegade" and "rebel" - commonly associated with defying the social norms and the laws.

[tsrräfkxätu]

While I agree with pretty much everything Keyl, tigermind, and Alìm have said, I still see no reason why the Na'vi couldn't have lived without the word "lie." You don't have to presuppose a moral or biological incapacity; maybe they didn't need it often enough. After all, Grace didn't claim to have taught them the concept, just the word.

In a community so small, so closed, and so proximate as a Na'vi tribe, it's difficult to lie and not get caught, and the prospect of permanently losing face with the people you have to share the rest of your life with is something that will make anyone think twice about telling a lie. In a communal society such as theirs, lying doesn't make much sense even without a potential punishment, but when the long-term risks of becoming stigmatized, cast out, or even queue-cut so far outweigh the momentary benefits, lying becomes plain pointless. Thus, I'm not hesitant to accept that the Na'vi are exposed to much fewer lies in their lives than humans. Under these circumstances, a Na'vi would probably only lie in order to cover up an even more severe misdeed (e.g. murder), so the actual punishment may be meted out for that, and not for the dishonesty per se – once again rendering a dedicated term unnecessary.

Finally, who's to say that they didn't call a lie pänu akawng, the act peng lì'ut atsleng, and the perpetrator tìkawngsiyu or tìtslengpengyu when the need arose, even before Grace taught them lay? English didn't always have a word for Schadenfreude, but that doesn't mean people couldn't feel or talk about it.

[Prrton]

While I agree with pretty much everything Keyl, tigermind, and Alìm have said, I still see no reason why the Na'vi couldn't have lived without the word "lie." You don't have to presuppose a moral or biological incapacity; maybe they didn't need it often enough. After all, Grace didn't claim to have taught them the concept, just the word.

In a community so small, so closed, and so proximate as a Na'vi tribe, it's difficult to lie and not get caught, and the prospect of permanently losing face with the people you have to share the rest of your life with is something that will make anyone think twice about telling a lie. In a communal society such as theirs, lying doesn't make much sense even without a potential punishment, but when the long-term risks of becoming stigmatized, cast out, or even queue-cut so far outweigh the momentary benefits, lying becomes plain pointless. Thus, I'm not hesitant to accept that the Na'vi are exposed to much fewer lies in their lives than humans. Under these circumstances, a Na'vi would probably only lie in order to cover up an even more severe misdeed (e.g. murder), so the actual punishment may be meted out for that, and not for the dishonesty per se – once again rendering a dedicated term unnecessary.

Finally, who's to say that they didn't call a lie pänu akawng, the act peng lì'ut atsleng, and the perpetrator tìkawngsiyu or tìtslengpengyu when the need arose, even before Grace taught them lay? English didn't always have a word for Schadenfreude, but that doesn't mean people couldn't feel or talk about it.

This is VERY WELL written and the whole discussion is fascinating.

I personally believe that "lying is universal" but that some do it more and better than others. Our modern western society is OBSESSED with lying. We've taken it to the highest art. Read the Post Truth Era. Fascinating. I believe that no one wants to read this book because it's so revealing about how we ALL LIE (virtually all the time), and how it's on the rise. We have more euphemisms for lying than all the adjectives in Na'vi! But, I think that at the opposite end of the spectrum, the Na'vi might have only as our wise tsmuk has proposed, just a vague sense of puslltxe nìtsleng. That could easily be kxanì by general horen that all Na'vi learn as young children... like our shiny new "Golden Rule", without being codified LAW. Laws are distinctly tied to formalized fear constructs as societal control mechanisms enforced by institutions (that make them) and can really only function in literate societies in which "books can be thrown." The complexity in the "art of lying" that we now *enjoy* has evolved along with the complexity (and pragmatics) of our laws.

I say that "lying is universal" due to the fact that apes/chimpanzees who are taught communication paradigms that they can share with humans do it, and even my intelligent cat does it (after a fashion).

I have two cats. They are brothers from the same litter. One is the sweetest cat in the word (BAR NONE), but he's not very smart. His brother is VERY intelligent and he knows how to LIE. They are given a special food twice a day that helps clean plaque off their teeth. They LOVE it and know that they only get this food at 9:00 AM and 12:00. Their internal kitty clocks are in more or less perfect sync with this pattern of being fed this food. 95% of the time, I give them this food. Occasionally (rarely), my husband does it and more often than not, in that scenario, the smart one then comes and tells me again, shortly after he's just eaten, "it's time." He does not understand that my husband and I can communicate to each other about this. So, he asks for MORE (presumably hoping that I won't know he's just eaten). He doesn't understand that this is a "lie" (apparently like children don't understand the concept of lying until taught). I admonish him to "not tell 'stories'".