Talk:Naʼvi language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tripartite

How a language is supossed to have both ergative an accusative cases?--Saguzar1 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Read tripartite alignment. kwami (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

speakers

Two of the actors, Zoe Saldana and one other, evidently have used bits of Na'vi offset, Saldana saying her mom looks at her weird when she drops Na'vi words at dinner. Not exactly a "speaker", but I wonder if that's worth mention. kwami (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Emoticons for affect

I noticed that the notation for affect has been changed from parenthesized words "(ugh!)" and "(yeah!)" to Unicode emoticons "☹" and "☺". Is there a consensus for that? It's not that I don't like the idea as such but I find the emoticons pretty hard to read: especially when using a small font it becomes virtually impossible to distinguish between the two. Also, some people's computers might still have difficulties with showing Unicode characters. I'd suggest changing them back to the original notation "(ugh!)" and "(yeah!)" or at least something similarly textual. What do you think? What is the advantage of using emoticons over simple text? Sebastian Goll (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Emoticons should not be used in encyclopedic articles...not only for the reason Sebastian raises above, but for aesthetic and professional appearance reasons as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well, but "ugh!" and "yeah" are similarly unprofessional. Just append the sentences with something like (enthusiastic) or (dissapproving), so there is no confusion. Seppukitty (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll change back for now; then we can discuss better translations. kwami (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

A section should explain what are the official sources / institution for the languages. Is there a book ? Just the movie and Frommer ? The movie and the studio ? please explain where we have to look for official sources. Yug (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oel ngati kameie "I See you (yeah!)"

What does "Oel ngati kameie - I See you (yeah!)" means ?

1. Hey ! hello dude !
2. I read in you / trust you.

The film make a clear distinction. But "Oel ngati kameie - I See you (yeah!)" seems like "Hey ! Hello dude !", while I found nothing like "I read in you / trust you." in the article. Yug (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

“(yeah!)” is an awkward way of describing something that doesn't exist in English as such: the affect, and here in particular the positive attitude of the speaker. In oel ngati kameie, this laudative is used to indicate the pleasure the speaker feels in the meeting. Please see the discussion #Emoticons for affect above for the issues with “(yeah!)” and, similarly, “(ugh!)”. The “see into you” aspect of kame is suggested by capitalizing “See”, as was done in the movie script.[1] Sebastian Goll (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think emoticons are a better solution. kwami (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Emoticons are not optimal for several reasons, some of which I stated before. In addition, there is more than just the affect for positive and negative attitude (laudative and pejorative) since we also have formal and evidential affect. Emoticons could only cover the first two, but not the others. So, this is what I suggest: Why not simply stick to the linguistic habit of simply putting a marker in the translation? Then oel ngati kameie would translate as “I See you [LAUD]!” Pejorative would similarly be marked with “[PEJ]”, honorifics with “[HON]”, and evidentiality with “[EV]”. Sebastian Goll (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I had not know of these linguistic markers before. After seeing them in use, I absolutely believe they should implemented. For that matter, perhaps a template could be built to make addition easier. Something like {{lingmark|pej}}? Let me know if there's any support for this and I'll build it. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Those we already have in the gloss. I guess I'm afraid that repeating the gloss in the translation will make it less accessible. I did do that for clusivity, but clusivity isn't s.t. normally conveyed in English. Affect is - it's just that it's conveyed through intonation. How to convey such intonation in print, so that a linguistically naive reader will have some idea what how it means? ASCII emoticons, as unprofessional as they are, do get that across. kwami (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, I know you think emoticons would be the best solution, but please just dismiss the idea. Many people have expressed a dislike for the idea and multiple reasons have been given above as to why it won't work. Now, I personally don't see any reason why repeating the gloss will be problematic...a link is provided for reader elucidation. And, they certainly look more encyclopedic that "yeah!" and "ugh!".

Related to the template suggestion above, I see you using < > in the article (well, other marks, but I don't know them) rather than brackets. Please confirm this is the standard markup? Also, any suggestions on brief but descriptive template names? "Laud", "pej", "hon", and "ev" are appropriate abbreviations? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Three isn't "many"; also, this is a discussion. On it we discuss things.

Angle brackets mark infixes; those are the standard abbreviations. Please read the links we provided.

The linked abbreviations are fine for interlinear glossing. However, you want a translation to be legible, not to look like a catalog number. There are two solutions I think would work: emoticons, and parenthetical comments long enough to be self evident. kwami (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree regarding the "two solutions" thing, but whatever. Thought I'd try and help, though I see it was unwanted. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your help is wanted, just not suggestions to drop things that you don't agree with.

BTW, as for the LeanNa'vi link, their Pocket Guide is simple plagiarism of us and the Survival Guide, with numerous errors introduced. There were complaints about that, which were flamed and then deleted without any credit given.

As for proper abbreviations, they're fine as long as we've properly ID'd the grammatical functions. I think that could use some fine tuning (see next). kwami (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading the forums at that site, particularly http://forum.learnnavi.org/suggestions/plagiarism/, I'm rather disappointed with the Learnnavi site as well. The "Changing parts of speech" section, which I compared, is almost word-for-word taken from the Wiki article. Shame on them and the site owner, who shut down that thread, claiming "Wikipedia is not a reliable reference". That's just shady. As to the abbreviations, once the terminology is nailed down, I'll mock something up, template-wise. Always easier than writing out longform. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen other cases of failure to attribute WP, but as soon as it was brought to their attention, they apologized and attributed within a day. I've never seen a site refuse before.

I liked "laudative" because LAUD was so unmistakable, and similarly PEJ, whereas APPROB is annoyingly long. Too many abbr. start with 'app', and APB is not intelligible IMO. (Well, actually, not much less so than APPROB.) Any suggestions there would be appreciated.

If a template meant entering 'dat' and auto-linking to dative case, that would be quite convenient. However, I wonder if that might not require a fair amount of maintenance. Also, once the abbr. is introduced, we don't need to keep linking, so {{sc}} is all we need. kwami (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions for better glosses? "Laudative" wasn't quite right, as it means "praising". I've found the term "approbative" used in a few grammars, and that would seem to more precise (though without as easily recognizable an abbreviation). "Pejorative" isn't too bad, but again is maybe a bit too narrow. kwami (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

not needed

as much as I enjoyed the film, this page is not necassary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.9.232 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely necassariless. Dan ☺ 00:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As are 99% of the articles on WP. kwami (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As are 99.9% of websites on the internet. Indeed, people have odd ideas about what constitutes "necessary". They don't seem to understand the idea of a website having virtually unnecessary room with which to expand. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean it was unnecessary, just completely necassariless. No I actually love this article. Just making a silly joke. Bad taste. forget it. On with the good work! Dan ☺ 07:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol, okay. I was wondering about the double misspellings :P — Huntster (t @ c) 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

'to have'

Does anyone have a source on the 'to be and to have' section? If the verb 'to have' is just the dative of 'to be', how do you say 'I have a spear for you?' Having two datives seems to defeat the purpose of the grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.54.128.231 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of languages do this - in fact, I think it's more common than having a verb 'have'. As for two datives, that's a question for Frommer. Could be a diff tween case and a prep, maybe. kwami (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"One source" tag

So the page's author just removed the {{one source}} tag I added, with the rationale "of course it's from one source. there is only one source". Errr, this is a serious problem. There is absolutely no evidence that the intricacies of the language (such as syntax and vocabulary) are actually notable enough to cover if they're only explored in a single primary source. This differs substantially from the other fictional languages brought up in the AfD, because the syntax and vocabulary of said languages have actually been explored by multiple reliable secondary sources.

In its current state, exactly two lines of this article (both in the lede) cover the subject from a real-world perspective. Those are as follows:

It was created by Paul Frommer, a professor at the Marshall School of Business with a doctorate in linguistics. Na’vi was designed to fit James Cameron's conception of what the language should sound like in the film, to be realistically learnable by the fictional human characters of the film, and to be pronounceable by the actors, but to not closely resemble any single human language.

Aside from that, the entire article is derived from Frommer's source, save for the odd snip of dialogue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with developing a comprehensive guide to the language on WikiBooks, but treating it as a real-world language on Wikipedia and devoting an article to its syntax, grammar and vocabulary when said material is derived entirely from the language's author is absurd.

For it to remain here it needs to be completely reworked to concentrate on the language's development, use and analysis by secondary sources. The {{one source}} tag was designed for precisely this kind of article and should be re-added. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We do use secondary sources: interviews etc. with Frommer. If that's what you want, then the 'one source' tag is not valid. If, however, you want sources other than ones reporting on Frommer, there aren't any. If that's the case, it seems that what you're really calling for is AfD.

What the 'one source' tag says is that the article should be expanded with other sources, which is the opposite of how you're presenting it. kwami (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read {{one source}}. What it says is "this article relies largely or entirely upon a single source". This article is indeed entirely dependent on one particular source, without which almost none of the content would exist. The AfD established that the subject can have encyclopedic value; it did not establish that the intricacies of the language's syntax et cetera are notable, and indeed one of the few useful responses in the AfD was EEMIV's which said just that: that much of said intricacies should be trimmed. I appreciate that you apparently do a huge amount of work on languages on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that all languages are created equal. If there are really no secondary sources which examine the material upon which the majority of the article is based (and that seems to be the case) then such material should be removed. Ideally, it would then be replaced by material on things which are covered by secondary sources, such as the process by which the language was created, the requirements placed upon it, and its reception amongst film-goers and linguists. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with Chris Cunningham. This page, and the meticulous work put into its contents by its collaborators, is an invaluable resource for the Na'vi community. I have relied upon it heavily while learning the language. But I have felt all along, and still do, that much of the content within it does not belong on Wikipedia. A great deal of the analysis is Original Research, with no non-WP source. A great deal of the remainder is single-sourced - which should not necessarily disqualify it for WP, but it should give us pause.

The WP article on the Na'vi language should contain information about the language that is plainly stated in multiple sources. It should not contain analysis of or extrapolations from Frommer's Language Log post, no matter how well-supported that analysis or extrapolation is by evidence obtained from the Survival Guide, Frommer's emails, snippets from interviews, or dialog from the movie. If you have to put the pieces together or read between the lines, it is original research and should not be here.

The bulk of this article should be copied into Wikibooks, and this article should be trimmed to contain only what is plainly evident from reliable sources (i.e. the history of the language's development, its use in the film, the growing population of speakers, etc.). I think the main points from Frommer's Language Log post could be included, perhaps in summary form.

Wikibooks is the right place for all the wonderful, valuable, greatly-appreciated work being done here. If not Wikibooks, then some other place: a mailing list, a forum, a wiki, what have you. There surely are plenty of readily available ways to host the ongoing third-party analysis and documentation of Frommer's language. - Erimeyz - 69.45.101.10 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

similar phonotactics?

Does anyone know of a lang w similar phonotactics? A fair number of languages allow words like skxawng; Haida, for example, as it allows fric-plos. clusters with anterior but not posterior frics, but Haida wouldn't allow fngap (assuming it had an f), and does allow coda frics and st-type clusters. kwami (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

History Section Sources

Since someone asked, all the facts in the History section I added were sourced from the media reports already listed in the References section: Times Online, LA Times, USO, Vanity Fair, and NY Times. And when I say all the facts in that section, I mean all the facts in that section, including the fact that Frommer is currently working on a compendium and that he plans to turn it in to Fox "soon" (his word, which I reported as "in the near future"). If anyone thinks anything in that section is not accurate, I invite you to reread the interviews and articles; if there's a statement you think isn't supported, I'd be happy to provide the specific quotations from the articles that I relied upon. Almost everything is supported by at least two sources; many of them by three or four.

On reviewing, the catch by Kwami about ejectives and free word order not being uncommon is a good catch. While writing the section I misinterpreted part of Frommer's Vanity Fair interview. He says that "there are some elements in the Na’vi language that I think are pretty rare in human language" and then goes on to describe the language's interesting bits, including ejectives and free word order. He doesn't actually characterize all of those bits as "rare".

In the USO interview, he does characterize the tripartite system as "rare", so I may add that to the list. Maybe not, though. A single example is really enough to make the point, and it probably reads better as is. - Erimeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And on that note, what's needed to remove the {{cn}} tag from Frommer's plans for the compendium? Do I actually need to add a footnote in the article text pointing to the Vanity Fair article? I thought my edit comment would have been sufficient to clear things up. - Erimeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erimeyz, thanks for responding! What I need is a list of links or whatnot for those sources, so I can go through and attribute the different statements. For example, see the article Volcanism on Io, where each sentence or group of sentences has a citation attached. That's what I need to do here. If you can provide that list of links, I'd very much appreciate it. Alternatively, it would be even more helpful if you went through and added those links to article yourself (just wrap each citation in <ref></ref> tags). As for the {{cn}} tag: same as above...it just needs a citation. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's going to make the article very, very cluttered with footnotes. My understanding as per Wikipedia:Citing sources is that citations are needed for material that is challenged, or likely to be challenged. Are there any parts of the History section that are controversial?

For example, there are (roughly) thirteen facts in the article's lead, only one of which is cited - and that citation is for something that could reasonably be disputed, namely that the only one who understands the grammar is Paul Frommer. The other twelve, eight of which are also contained in the History section, are uncited - which is appropriate, because they are uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged by anyone even vaguely familiar with the subject matter. I believe the same is true of the facts in the History section: they are uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged.

Also, since all the facts in the History section are supported by one or more of the already-listed references, and those references themselves are used to support a great deal of content in the rest of the article, it seems that Wikipedia:Citing_sources#General_references would apply here: "If a source supports a significant amount of material in an article, general references may often be used."

I welcome your feedback. - Erimeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, I added cites for the direct quotes. I also added a cite for Frommer's compendium plans, since that could be a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources" as discussed in Wikipedia:When to cite. I didn't cite the "Welcome aboard" quote, since (as I mention below) I'm not happy with the wording in this section, and I suspect that part will get re-written out when someone takes a good set of eyes and a red marker to it. - Erimeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cluttered footnoting isn't an issue...we're now able to stick all refs at the bottom of the page inside the "Reflist" template. Rule of thumb is this: if it can be cited, provide a citation. Pretty much any featured article or good article is required to have this. I'm not asking that you do all the formatting yourself; just give me the set of links and I'll take care of all that myself. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that article text full of numbered pointers to references (which is what I meant by "cluttered with footnotes" - I'm aware that the references themselves are at the bottom of the page) is aesthetically unappealing, and consequently my preference is to leave them out unless there's a good reason to include them. Wikipedia:Citing sources lists the good reasons to include them, none of which apply here. However, I'll defer to others' judgment here - if you feel there are places in the article text that need citations, I'm content to let you add them.

The set of links you're asking about are at the bottom of the page, under References. Specifically, as I mentioned above, I used the following articles as sources: Ayres, The Times; Boucher, Los Angeles Times; Milani, Unidentified Sound Object; Sancton, Vanity Fair; Zimmer, The New York Times. I drew upon all of these sources for the section, and synthesized the section from bits and pieces out of every article (without adding any new facts or implications due to the synthesis, as warned about in WP:SYN).

I'll maintain once again that the source articles (which have been listed as general references in References section since long before I got here) are used to support a significant amount of material in this article, including the language analysis (which was previously the only content on the page). Accordingly, I don't think specific citations are required here, and I think that having them would detract from the article's readability and usability, not enhance it. Please reread Wikipedia:Citing_sources#General_references if you haven't lately. But if you're not convinced, I won't press the point.

Thanks for your feedback and assistance. - Erimeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On a different note: I'm not satisfied with some of the wording in this section, but I'm too close to it and it's too fresh in my mind for me to do a good job editing it. This was my first pass at the subject. It desperately needs another set of eyes to edit it for grammar, style, encyclopedia-ness, etc. I do think the facts as presented are good, but some could perhaps be trimmed. For example, I wasn't certain about mentioning Edward Finegan; I left him in because he's the key link between Cameron and Frommer, but perhaps that was a mistake. At the very least that sentence needs rewriting, badly. Other facts could perhaps be reorganized, although I do think the chronological presentation of the language's development works well. Feel free to rewrite something if you see a better way to present things. - Erizmeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I tagged that one point specifically. Most of the rest is fairly generic, and repeated in several sources. But there are conflicting claims about what he will do with the language. I'm not sure Frommer himself knows at this point. So I think a cite for the specific point I tagged is called for; that way readers will be able to judge which to believe when they see conflicting claims, whether this is reliable or perhaps by that point just dated. kwami (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Total speakers

I disagree with the point that there is only one speaker of the Na'vi language. Other constructed languages like Klingon have received thousands of speakers, simply because of the popularity of the film and the ability to learn the language through the Internet, even Wikipedia articles such as this one. So while there may not be any fluent speakers, this will likely change once more of the general population knows about this film, especially fans, although it would then be difficult to get an estimate of the number of speakers, unless some kind of institute is created. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why it's problematic to use any numbers in this field. I would suggest simply saying "none fluent", which should clearly indicate both that there are an unknown number of speakers out there, but that none are yet at a native speaker level. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no-one besides Frommer who knows the grammar of the language. You can't meaningfully speak a language w/o knowing its grammar. kwami (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are claiming too much. People certainly can speak a language without knowing its grammar - for example, vast numbers of people speak English without knowing its grammar, including native speakers. Knowing its grammar may make you more proficient, but you can be fluent without being proficient, and you can be a speaker without being fluent. Speaking hypothetically: if someone had access to a large enough audio corpus of Na'vi, and had some native speakers to immerse within, one could become a Na'vi speaker (even a fluent one) without ever studying the grammar nor even being able to describe it. Speaking non-hypothetically: we don't know the complete grammar, but we know enough of it to be able to speak. Perhaps not with the proficiency of a native - or even of a native child - but to speak nonetheless.

As a practical matter of putting a number in the infobox, we'd have to determine what constitutes a "speaker", and how we might count them. Looking at the English language article, we find that estimates of the number of speakers vary by almost an order of magnitude "depending on how literacy or mastery is defined and measured." A quick survey of the conlang pages on Wikipedia shows that the "number of speakers" infobox field is most commonly left blank. Second most common: "Unknown." Some of the bigger languages make an effort at putting in a number: Klingon - "Unknown. Around 12 fluent speakers in 1996." Toki Pona - "Three said to be fluent; several dozen with internet chat ability." Esperanto provides estimates for native speakers and fluent speakers; both range across an order of magnitude.

To maximize the usefulness of this WP article, I think it should answer the question "How many people speak Na'vi?" That's the sort of thing someone reading about the language would want to know, i.e. it's a relevant and notable fact about the language. To be included in WP, the answer needs to be verifiable, not original research, and NPOV; these are currently obstacles, but I think they can be overcome in time. Informally, the answer is something like "Nobody speaks it natively or fluently (yet), but about two thousand people are attempting to learn it, and some unknown subset of them actually speak it with varying degrees of proficiency." If at some point someone produced an estimate of the number of speakers, including a not-obviously-unreasonable definition of "speaker", then I think we could cite that estimate and put the number in the infobox.

As it is now, though, I think the best answer anyone could provide is "Unknown". However, saying even that much would require a citation that there are more speakers than just Frommer, and I don't think such a cite is available (although I'll be looking for one, and I think I may be able to find one in the next few days). In lieu of that cite, all we can say is that Frommer speaks it (which we know based on the general references, thus not needing a specific cite). In other words, the answer is "1" until we can cite otherwise. - Erimeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am perhaps the last person who should be discussing here, as I nominated this article for deletion. But most of your argument is based on the assumption that there are native Na'vi speakers, which is false. And second, not many people speak Na'vi anyway. The only speaker we can obtain a reliable source for is Frommer. Any other number you want to place in there conflicts directly with WP:OR. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how my argument has anything to do with native speakers. The infobox says "speakers", not "native speakers"; the infoboxes for other languages (natural and constructed) provide estimated numbers for non-native speakers. Also: I agree with you (and said as much) that putting anything other than "1" would be OR... at this time. If and when we can find a cite for a different number (or even an unknown quantity greater than one), then we could change the infobox without it being OR. - Erimeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason that many people know Klingon is that dozens of bestselling books on the subject have been published over the course of decades, and because there are active societies and organisations dedicated to it. The two are as comparable as Na'vi and Latin. In the long run, removing the infobox entirely is probably a better idea unless the language genuinely becomes better known for its linguistic properties than its having been in a James Cameron movie. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the entire infobox, but honestly, removing the speakers field is probably the best option, since there just are no reliable numbers, and folks will continue to see "1" as something that needs to be 'fixed'. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That just means policing the article. So far, according to the creator of the language, there is one semi-speaker, himself. That's a pretty reliable number. kwami (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We generally count native speakers, but for conlangs tend to go for fluent speakers. But the only one who could be fluent in Na'vi is Frommer, and he says that he isn't. So that makes one partial speaker -- when he talks to himself. Saldaña evidently sprinkles her speech with Na'vi words at home, but that's not the same thing as speaking a language. As for the people now learning, or trying to learn, Na'vi, we need to wait until we have some independent evidence of how many speak and how well, which will be some time yet. kwami (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

New message from Paul Frommer

Here's a new message today from the creator of the language. Happy parsing! Mithridates (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

English tenses

Before someone rolls back this edit (I almost did myself, but then had a thought), I wonder if we should actually keep it. I know in some theories of syntax English is claimed to only have two tense features (or, more accurately, one tense feature, [past], which may be turned on or off to yield past and present, whereas future is derived with auxiliary verbs). But that is a very theory-specific account, and I assume the language description in this article should be as general as possible, not particular to one theory or another. Most speakers intuitively think about the tenses as being past, present, and future. So actually I agree with the IP in changing this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you agree with reverting it.

I think it's fine as a footnote, and actually that it's not that theory-specific: our "future" doesn't behave like the (other) tenses, but more like a modal. But since we're all taught in elementary through secondary school that English has a future tense, IMO this will just cause distraction on a point that is irrelevant to Na'vi. I'm gonna revert; if s.o. wants to clarify that our "future" isn't really a tense, please add it in a footnote w an appropriate link for those who find it bizarre.

I did just that. Our own article states, "in all cases, the sentences are actually voiced in the present tense, since there is no proper future tense in English. It is the implication of futurity that makes these present tense auxiliary constructions amount to a compound future quasi-tense." kwami (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, you're right—I was reading that diff entirely backwards. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Maori roots

An IP recently added a bit to the article whose source states that Frommer and Cameron drew influence for the language from Maori, but Erimeyz reverted the addition saying the source *didn't* support the claim. I've read the article and by any interpretation it is clear that Maori was at least a basic influence to Na'vi, so I'm not sure what Erimeyz's reason for reverting was. Regardless, should anyone want to add something about this to the history section (and it seems like it would be a useful addition), then the link is above. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what Cameron says, and he's more hype than fact. We've generally ignored his claims about Na'vi. (He says the grammar is German, for example.) But we could say that he says that the 3 doz. names that he came up with were influenced by Maori, as long as we don't extend that claim to what Frommer did. But we've got to find a better article: "mixing Maori with European and African languages"—no, they most definitely did not do that. kwami (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What? That article doesn't say anything about "mixing Maori with European and African languages". I now see that another article by 3 News says that in a photo caption...is that what you are referring to? Regardless, I suppose the reliability of 3 News is a bit sullied with that other story floating out there. Oh well, would have been nice to have *some* language root to claim.

As an aside, I just removed an odd sentence from the Simple Wiki article about how someone named "John Potter" created Na'vi after the Maori language. Vandalism I'm sure, but interesting given this Maori bit. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the Maori bit. If Cameron says he had Maori in mind for those initial words, and Frommer says that it looked polynesian to him, that's good enough (assuming the quotes are somewhere near accurate), as long as people don't go to those articles and try adding things that the journalist or editor invented. But it would be misleading to say Na'vi is "based" on Maori; that's like saying English is based on Hebrew because most English given names are Jewish. kwami (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Or like saying that Na'vi is "based on Xhosa" because some idiot journalist thought that qʼ is a click... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, very good, and completely agree re: saying Na'vi is *based* on Maori. Obviously not the case. Interesting though that 3 News has *three* articles all posted today and all covering the same topic and using the same persons, with random differences in each. Slow news day in New Zealand? — Huntster (t @ c) 12:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The original addition was "In January 2010, Frommer and Cameron confirmed a heavy influence of Maori, a language native to New Zealand." The cited news article did not say or imply "heavy", and did not have a quotation from either Frommer or Cameron supporting the claim that Maori was an influence of any sort. The Frommer quote said "When I looked at [Cameron's words], I thought they had a Polynesian feel to them [and] I thought maybe he had some Maori in his ear". That says that Frommer thought that Cameron might have been influenced by Maori. That's a long way from the claim. I considered rewriting it and integrating it into the History section, but I ultimately felt so little was said in the source that there was nothing that was both supportable and relevant. I did not search for other sources that might offer better support; I probably should have before reverting.

I completely agree with Kwami's subsequent edits. They are well written, specific, relevant, nicely integrated into the article, and properly supported. - Erimeyz --69.45.101.10 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

While ultimately this worked out fine, I would point out that when using such an article as a source, it isn't necessary for the individuals being quoted in places to specifically state, for example, that Maori was specifically an influence. The whole point of using "reliable sources" is that their word should be good enough, and the article writer *did* state that it was "partly based on Maori". We assume the writer fact checked before publishing (though I have a bad feeling about this 3 News). Not a criticism Erimeyz, just something for future consideration :) — Huntster (t @ c) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I had the same bad feeling, which is why I didn't rely on the reporter's characterization but instead looked for direct quotations. But yes, you are correct, and thanks for mentioning it (although I did know it already). - Erimeyz --69.45.101.10 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ref tagging

Can someone separate the references from the notes? It would be preferable to tell what is what.

For instance:

<ref group=Note> ... </ref> - is a note

<ref> ... </ref> - is a reference citation

76.66.200.154 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is something I plan to do in the future. I just don't have time to deal with it right now. It'll get done. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. For what it's worth, this sort of thing can be done by anyone and only takes 5 minutes, so in the future there's no need to ask. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mystery Rules

So, I visit the article just now and new rules have been added about modal verbs, the ‹iv› infix and transitivity. Well and fine, but could people perhaps take more care saying where these insights are coming from? I know some people are mailing Frommer, but it would be nice to note that somehow. WmAnnis (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And now there's a whole new section on transitivity. "Many verbs may be either transitive or intransitive, depending on the context. General verbs of action, without any specific object, are intransitive. If the agent is in the ergative case, but there is no expressed object, then an object is implied." That's great, it resolves some long-standing questions. BUT... cite, please? - Erimeyz 76.17.0.169 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And the specter of original research raises its ugly head... --SandChigger (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Better than ignorance. kwami (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia, it isn't. Here, ignorance is merely inferior to reliably sourced information, while original research is anathema. --Pi zero (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the citations will be releasable soon. Meanwhile the two editors above seem to be satisfied with the info we've been able to provide. kwami (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My satisfaction is still currently overrun by anxieties about clear lines of authority for what's being said.  :) Knowing the citations will be released sooner rather than later will have to pass for satisfaction for now. WmAnnis (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were referring to me, I'm certainly not satisfied. I'm happy that info is being released, but I'm unhappy that it can't be cited and very unhappy that it's on Wikipedia. In fact, I'm making my disatisfaction concrete by adding a cn tag or two. Is the plan for this entire article to just hold out until Frommer eventually releases a complete description of the language, and then say "see, we were right all along, and now we have proof!"? - Erimeyz 69.45.101.10 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we can't exactly cite emails, the plan is to make the only reliable info beside the LangLog article public until Frommer can confirm it, yes. kwami (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You should make it public someplace other than Wikipedia. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." It says so right there underneath the editing text box. -- Erimeyz 69.45.101.10 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't get this. You're citing emails for some things, yet tagging others because you say emails are not a "canonical source". Eg, trials need a citation, but duals do not? And the entire article is tagged. What's the point of the individual tags? And why are some emails but not others acceptable? kwami (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not that the information comes from emails, it's that the information is unpublished and thus unverifiable. The cites I added were to published emails. The claims I tagged are unsupported by anything verifiable that I can find (please correct me if I'm wrong - by citing it!). I've only tagged a couple of claims that I happen to know aren't verifiable. There's probably a lot more, and maybe someone will tag them, too.

The article tag is for unpublished synthesis of published material, and it applies to the corpus analysis that's been done in the article - all of which is original research. That's different from the claims I've tagged, which are not even original research; they're simply unverifiable. I don't think the entire article deserves being tagged with {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}, but some specific claims in the article are unreferenced and should be cited or removed. - Erimeyz -- 69.45.101.10 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

None of those emails are published. They're simply posted on a blog. That's not verifiable. kwami (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Posted on a blog" (or rather, forum) seems like "published" to me, but I won't argue semantics. The key question is whether or not it's verifiable. The fact needing to be verified is that Frommer has said (for instance) that the trial form is pxe+, or that Frommer has said (for instance) that the subject of modal verbs is intransitive. A posted email from Frommer saying such a thing serves to verify the fact that he said such a thing. The only question is whether the posted email is a reliable source.

A post on a random blog or forum isn't generally considered a reliable source... but the evaluation of a source's reliability is both subjective and dependent on the context. A forum post making a claim about the language wouldn't be reliable, any more than a forum post making a claim about astronomy or history would be. But the fact being reported by the forum post isn't about the language, it's about the literal contents of Frommer's email. Considering the nature of the forum in question, I think there is ample reason to believe that the forum posters are reliably quoting the contents of emails sent to them by Frommer. - Erimeyz -- 76.17.0.169 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agreee that it's acceptable, though others may dispute that. But then we return to the question of why you would tag some but not all of such claims for citation. Why those the trial in particular, and not any of the other dozens of such claims? Why disrupt a table with a tag, rather than tagging the entire section? kwami (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Disrupting the table was overkill, and you were right to revert it; thanks for calling me on it. Why did I tag a few and not the other dozens? Because I knew of those few offhand and could tag them quickly. I'm not strong enough in Na'vi to quickly identify which of the facts in the article are extrapolated from published sources and which are supported only by sources that we can't see. But I might start tagging more of them, or perhaps someone else will. Why tag individual facts instead of sections or the whole article? Because the unverifiable facts are different from (and fewer in number than) the facts that have been extrapolated from published sources. The former, where we can't point to anything at all to support the claim, are far more egregious than the latter. If the article is going to continue to exist, original research and all, it should at least be excised of statements whose only support is "someone told me." - Erimeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So, once you've tagged everything that you know can be verified, the stuff that's left over is potentially unverifiable? AFAIK, nothing in the article is unverifiable. Everything is at least extrapolated from emails from Frommer or bits of Na'vi he has released. kwami (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I was unclear, sorry. I meant that I knew offhand that the three facts I tagged could not be verified. That's why I tagged them. Trial forms, intransitive general actions, and plural exclusively for four+ have all been discussed at length, with no firm conclusion other than "Frommer will have to clear it up." Apparently they have now in fact been cleared up by Frommer... except that as far as I can tell the emails which cleared them up can't be seen anywhere. Which makes the statements in the article based on those emails unverifiable. I'm sorry for my ambiguous wording before; does that clarify my argument? - Erimeyz --69.45.101.10 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The trial forms were provided by Prrton. That was the email he kept private until Frommer confirmed that he didn't mind it being released. It includes the full PN table, including the trials. In follow-up emails, he's commented on this; e.g. In the dual and trial, the stress on the oe element does not shift. So pxoengaru has 4 syllables and Oh, btw, for pxeeveng etc. . . . Yeah, you're right. It should contract to pxeveng. All of this is available at LearnNa'vi.

Plural as 4+ is at least implied by the mistake he made with LemonDrop, where he use plural ayoeng for two people in that pick-up line. That was egregious enough a slip for him to immediately contact them and ask that they make a correction.

Yeah, it does look like the intransitivity email hasn't been made public yet. People seem to vary in how much they are comfortable sharing. kwami (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

[outdenting the thread]

Prrton has never released the trial form email. When "A Message From Paul" hit the air, Prrton mentioned pxe- offhandedly without attestation that it came from Frommer, then later said it came from Frommer without being specific ("this insight" ... ?), then even later was more specific and explicit but still only reported "This information comes to me from Paul Frommer" as opposed to providing what Frommer actually said. I'll use that last post as the reference and remove the tag; it does provide verifiability, although the source is even less reliable than a posted email (which is already kinda pushing it) since it's second-hand reporting and interpretation rather than direct quotation.

The Frommerian uses of pxe in the published corpus don't clearly show that pxe+ is the trial affix or what the trial pronouns are. They show that pxe is the number "three", and they show "pxe" used as a prefix in two untranslated words. The line about pxoengaru does indicate that pxoengaru is the trial form of some pronoun, but the other trial pronouns can only be conjectured from that example, not attested.

Re lemondrop: First off, that's original research. Second of all, even as OR goes, I think it's a stretch and I would dispute it. Third off, even if it were clear and indisputable that Frommer's insistence that ayoeng was wrong implied that ay+ can't be used for two or three, there is no way for anyone to verify that Frommer insisted that ayoeng was wrong! You can't cite it! Can you? The article doesn't have a retraction, it was just silently updated. The email from Frommer to the editor hasn't been published. It fails to meet Wikipedia's requirement of verifiability. I'm going to remove it from the article for all three reasons (OR, disputed, unverifable).

And finally, it's true that people vary in how much they want to release. But that has no bearing on Wikipedia. If it hasn't been released, it's not verifiable, and it can't be included in the article unless and until it gets released. I'm not comfortable rewriting the transitivity section myself, give how very well-written it is as it stands. I'd urge you to rewrite it to remove the unverifiable claims about intransitivity, and add them back in when there's actually published material that we can use as a reference. - Erimeyz --76.17.0.169 (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's now at Wikibooks, so this is irrelevant. But Prrton's email on PNs and trials was "published" on LeanNa'vi. kwami (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving content to wikibooks

At some point, most of the material on this page will be moved to wikibooks, and then at the top we can put the wikibooks template.

The reason is as stated above, since most of this material is original, unsourced, or some combination. The rest can stay, but it won't be a lot, according to my reconning. I haven't created the page on wikibooks, but that will be soon. Thoughts? Hires an editor (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked over there, and found that I had a bunch of edits. But they were all edits that I made here on WP, such as a bunch of AWB stuff! It looks as though the page histories were moved over to WB. Do you know how this works? kwami (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a way to move articles cross-wiki, history and all. I've seen that done with a bunch of my stuff as well, such as a featured article I worked on (Volcanism on Io) that had been moved to the German wiki. The page is Special:Import, however, that is disabled for en.wiki. We use the Wikipedia:Transwiki log, though I haven't the foggiest how it works. Other projects, however, do use the Import function, which is likely how your edits ended up at Wikibooks, and my edits found their way into de.wiki (and other places). It's all extremely convoluted, so don't ask me how it works. Also, check this site to see all edits attributed to your username (through SUL) across all wikis. Rather neat! — Huntster (t @ c) 12:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this needs to go to Wikibooks, or if it could just be migrated over to to the learnnavi wiki...? Suomichris (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Update

Right, I think at this point there's generally consensus that the bulk of the article beyond the "History" section (which is a great new addition and a definite step in the right direction Wikipedia-wise) belongs elsewhere. I've tagged the article for copying to Wikibooks; after that's complete, this article can be developed more in the direction how how the language was developed and what impact it has had, while the intricacies of the language itself are developed in a more suitable environment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have imported this at Wikibooks to b:Na'vi. Attempting to import the full history failed (either too large or due to the page being moved during the course of its existence). -- Adrignola (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed the sections dealing primarily with syntax and grammar. What we have left is a solid core which establishes what the language is, how it was created and what (if any) impact it has had on the wider world. Meanwhile, all the work done to document that language's actual construction has been preserved and is priminently linked to from our external links section. I've added a hidden comment at the top of the page to this effect. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored an old version that was based entirely on Frommer's LangLog post and other publicly available interviews. There are probably a few later corrects that will need to be redone, but refs should no longer be a problem. kwami (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They most certainly are a problem, because they all come from one primary source. I've started a new section on this below. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Readdition of guidebook sections

I really have to firmly disagree with the readdition of large sections (50% of the article by length) of content drawn entirely from one, primary source. Verifiability is not the sole inclusion criterion upon which we decide what is and isn't appropriate for articles, and as practically none of the readded material has yet had any treatment from secondary sources it is not appropriate for it to form so much of this article. We cannot continue to treat this article primarily as an examination of a natural language, because almost nobody else does at this point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I won't contest it if people feel it's inappropriate. kwami (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps scale it back a little so it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the prose, but I don't see it as inappropriate. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily object to a condensed version; I might even have a go of it myself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse the inclusion of a condensed version of the mechanics sections. I encourage anyone with the time and expertise to jump right in. Alas, all I can contribute right now is my endorsement and encouragement. :)

Chris, if I understand your earlier point... A detailed description of a natural language (such as, say, Basque grammar) is appropriate in WP because it can draw upon multiple sources that have performed the necessary linguistic analysis and published the resulting language descriptions? Whereas with Na'vi or Klingon, there's only one such source? I don't see that as an issue, or a violation of WP policies or guidelines. The "single source" caution (and it's only a caution, not a policy nor even a guideline) is to protect against inaccuracy or bias. For a conlang, that's simply not an issue; the primary source is definitive, and is definitively accurate and unbiased.

Reliance on primary sources is a separate concern, but even there the problem is not inherently due to using primary sources. The problem is the potential for including original research. I think careful and deliberate summarization of the Language Log post (and possibly other material, including published emails) can avoid this problem, while still providing a degree of detail that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia article (or rather, for part of a larger article about the language as a whole) and would be of interest to encyclopedia readers. - Erimeyz --69.45.101.10 (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm getting at: the issue is that while only one source has covered this material, there is nothing to suggest that it is actually the main point of interest in the language to a general encyclopedia reader. Klingon has not been covered by only one source and nor has, say, loglan. Far from it: there are dozens of good secondary sources which cover both, as well as large active communities devoted to them which have themselves received significant secondary coverage.

A better analogy at this point would be to something like a fictional sport portrayed in a film; the scriptwriter may very well have written a complete rulebook for said sport, but that does not mean that we should include it all in an article on the subject if it's only a peripheral part of the fictional work itself, assuming that it has not received significant secondary coverage itself. The basic point here is that at this stage, this article can only include significant secondary coverage of Na'vi as a fictional concept in a movie, rather than as a language. That it happens to have a robust grammar and a growing vocabulary is irrelevant while they don't receive significant secondary coverage for the same reason that George Lucas could have come up with a thirty-page list of rules for Tatooine Pod Racing without us having to treat it as a competitive sport like any other. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, and I like your analogy. :) I'll note that notability (i.e. secondary source coverage) is a criteria for the existence of an article on a given subject, but not for the content included in the article: WP:NNC. On the other hand, WP:WEIGHT suggests we should "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" and "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". I think there's some subjectivity there. The mechanics of the language, especially the distinctive elements, have enough "significance to the subject" that they deserve more than the offhand summary descriptions they get in the source interviews and articles. But I agree that they're not so significant, nor so prevalent in the sources, that they deserve the detailed documentation that was here previously. I look forward to seeing your condensed versions, as I imagine you'll strike a good balance. - Erimeyz --69.45.101.10 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The diff is, rules or no, no-one is going to start pod racing. But once a conlang is set up, people can (and do) start speaking it, or at least writing it. None of the Star Wars actors did a little pod racing at home after a shoot, but some of the Avatar actors did use Na'vi at home during their off hours. kwami (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The first half of that argument is purely speculative, and the latter is unsourced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just being obtuse. We're supposed to edit in good faith here. Please get on board. kwami (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the tone, but I can assume that you mean well and are looking to improve the encyclopedia while also considering your arguments weak. Frommer himself says in the first reference on the page right now that he hopes that the language takes off, but that he's the only person who actually understands the grammar and even he isn't fluent. And I can't see anything which suggests that the actors "used Na'vi at home during their off hours" in the references at all. If you happen to think that the pod racing analogy was a poor one, pick any one of the dozens of fictional games which appear in movies instead. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not used to needing citations for a talk page. There were refs to the effect of actors "speaking" the language above; personally, I doubt it's what most of would consider speaking, but instead just a few phrases they mix in with their English. There is not a speaking community. There is a learning community. I don't mind moving the grammar to Wikibooks, but I do mind stranding the people who come here looking for that info. kwami (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

They aren't being "stranded". People looking for technical detail on what is currently an obscure constructed language can follow the existing sisterlink to the right place, which is formatted as with any other such example on Wikipedia. This is exactly the same as with people who come to Wikipedia looking for guidelines on how to cook the perfect omelette, or change the oil in their car, or how to defragment their hard disks. There is no need to special-case this particular example. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That stuff can probably reside at the Wikibooks pages or a Wikiversity version. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content

Wikipedia don't allow non encyclopedic content. How can "this" information become encyclopedic cotent? It's just like to write the lyrics of a song or something.

--200.90.250.73 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Four-way number contrast in natural human languages

Some languages distinguish singular vs. dual vs. trial vs. plural in their pronoun system, and some nouns in classical Arabic distinguish singular vs. dual vs. "paucal" vs. plural forms (see Grammatical number article). So a four-way number grammatical number category contrast is not in fact unique to Na'vi (the only "innovation" for Na'vi would be to extend such a contrast to cover all nouns). AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right. I was thinking of a singular-dual-trial-plural system, which does not exist in any natural language. kwami (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

I'm considering adding a hatnote to more effectively point people to the Wikibooks page, since the tiny box at the bottom of the page is completely ineffective and doesn't explain *what* is at Books (aka, why isn't it here?). I'd prefer to not see everyone's excellent work, especially Kwami's, lost into the dark mist that is Wikibooks. Thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. (I was about to undo this edit, but maybe it was done with a hatnote in mind?) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. I've left the mini-boxes intact in their appropriate places in the article, just as a reminder. I don't like that the material has been moved from here (personally speaking, though I know its the right thing to have done), so hopefully this helps draw attention to the other articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That works well.

Since my contributions have been moved to Wikibooks, I'll leave this article more or less alone from now on. (Or so I think now!) kwami (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aww, don't give it up entirely. There are always tweaks to make, new material to cite! I'll be watching the Wikibooks version closely as well (that's my first experience at Wikibooks, and I've been on wiki since '04!), however, I do not like their format of placing content is separate pages *ahem* I mean, chapters. *annoyed look* — Huntster (t @ c) 09:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a "dark mist"; it is simply given the same status as Wikipedia's other sister sites. I'm okay with a sisterlinks template at the "grammar" section (although see below), but not with a hatnote which goes to an external site. Hatnotes have the specific purpose of directing people to the correct Wikipedia article for the subject they are looking for. Wikipedia is not Google and we shouldn't encourage people to treat it like a directory. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he means "dark mist" in the sense that no-one uses it, so anything placed there is effectively lost. kwami (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And I see nothing at WP:HAT that prohibits such usage. Their specific purpose is to guide readers to the resource that may be most appropriate for what they are looking for. This article doesn't provide detailed grammar rules for the language, and doesn't contain a listing of words, but *hey*, there's these other two Wiki articles that do. No, we're not Google, but we are here to provide a service to our readers, and this type of linking to a completely relevant topic seems logical. You can call it an external site if you wish...I consider it just another part of the Wikimedia network. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

External links are specifically covered in the "inappropriate uses" section of WP:HAT. I do not regard this as a "special circumstance". And I'm extremely disappointed that Kwami has just reverted it back in. The material was moved because it shouldn't have been here in the first place, and we're under no obligation to direct traffic to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw that. Like I said, I disagree with the notion that interwiki links are the same as random external links. Regardless, let's see what additional opinions are on this subject. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can't tell whether that's relevent or not. But the purpose of a hatnote is to help direct our readers to the proper article. If they come here looking for the Na'vi language article, they're not going to find it w/o s.t. like a hat note. kwami (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a hatnote pointing at a wikibooks article would generally be inappropriate. I do believe that this is a special circumstance, due to the history of this article. Yes, much of the content should not have been on WP in the first place... but nevertheless, it was. And as a result, many people have come to rely on WP for that content. As an aid to those WP users, I suggest including a hatnote pointing them to the new (and more appropriate) location for the content they came to WP to find. Temporarily. After, say, one week has passed, it would have served its purpose and would no longer be aiding WP users, at which point it should be removed, with the link to WB in External Links sufficient to help people find a more detailed treatment of the language. - Erimeyz --69.45.101.10 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Following my own logic, I removed the Wiktionary link from the hatnote, since the content there has never been included here. - Erimeyz --69.45.101.10 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Huntster, re this change: "why one and not the other" - see what I wrote above: "the content there [Wiktionary] has never been included here". In other words, while people will come here looking for the content that used to be here and which is now on Wikibooks, no one will come here looking for the content that's on Wiktionary. The hatnote is (arguably) appropriate for the first, but not the second. Please discuss if you disagree, or re-revert if you agree. - Erimeyz --69.45.101.10 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

These links really belong in the external links section. Sister sites have always been linked in external links. The Wikibooks link is linked again in the Phonology and orthography section and the Wiktionary link is linked in the Lexicon section. I don't really have a problem with that, but putting them in a hatnote gives those external links undue weight, which the hatnote guideline page clearly states. Basically I agree with Chris Cunningham's statements above. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a good solution would be to use the inline function for the sister site templates so that the external links section would look something like this: Na'vi at Wikibooks for a more complete guide to the mechanics of the Na'vi language The dictionary definition of Appendix:Na'vi at Wiktionary, for a list of known Na'vi words This would solve the problem mentioned in the first post of this section of having the sister site boxes not explain what content is at the links. We can even leave in the boxes in the body of the article if people want. But that hatnote content needs to be moved to the external links section. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, based on the continuous removal of the hatnote, it appears the majority of editors believe in the bureaucratic mentality of only doing things as they've been done in the past, rather than trying to serve our 4 to 5,000 daily readers (peak of 21k back in early January) to the best of our abilities. I find this incredibly sad, and wonder at what point the end user ceases to be more important than the process. Oh well. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been long discussions on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote about what a hatnote should and shouldn't be and contain. And the consensus has been in many places that Wikipedia isn't a repository of information or a search engine of the Internet. I don't want to start another argument, just make a point that most guidelines, such as the case here, have had long discussions associated with them, so it isn't like users are simply doing things for the sake of following bureaucratic rules. Maybe some new users do, but that isn't such a bad thing considering most guidelines have been built through reasoning and consensus. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

But no-one is proposing anything of the kind. AFAI can tell, the discussion did not address this issue. The guideline certainly never mentions it. kwami (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what Hunster meant when he said "look at the talk page" and "three admins" approve the hatnote. As far as I can see there is definitely no consensus on the talk page and the main two users that want the hatnote are Hunster and Kwamikagami. There has also been multiple users other than myself independently removing the hatnote. So why don't we get some consensus to keep a hatnote that is clearly out of the norm and violates guidelines rather than vice versa? LonelyMarble (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How many admins agree with the hatnote is irrelevant, though admins trying to pull rank while edit warring over it certainly doesn't do them any favours. The hatnote's repeated removal by multiple previously-uninvolved editors along with a number of arguments made for why it's inappropriate is certainly a better indicator of consensus for removal than its being continually tag-teamed back in by editors who certainly should know better based largely on a perceived need to tell people that something which isn't encyclopedic... isn't on Wikipedia. This is going to AN/EW if I pass by and see that people are still at it, and frankly I don't think that people being blocked is what anyone wants here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The guideline simply does not address the issue, so people removing the hatnote are acting on their own initiative, and only using the guideline as a (rather transparent) excuse. That said, the current boxes also work. The important thing is that we tailor our articles to the needs of our readers, not that we follow what some bureaucrat imagines is codified in some rulebook somewhere. kwami (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"The needs of our readers" are well-established. What is also well-established is how we deal with them. Plenty of people come to Wikipedia thinking that it's going to help them change the oil in their car, or get them the best deals on airline tickets. If this information is available on one of Wikipedia's sister sites, we add an appropriate template to the relevant article. We do not arbitrarily declare that some random chunks of information are worthy of more prominence.

The current compromise, while not ideal because it ignores consensus on sisterlink placement, should be the end of this. Thanks to the "unthinking robots" and "jobsworth bureaucrats" who came up with it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't for readers just hoping to find info on a particular topic, but for those looking for a particular article. It would be irresponsible for us not to redirect them. As for the fix, it was suggested a week ago, but some of us would rather hit 'delete' and screw the utility of the encyclopedia. kwami (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No. You wrote an article on an unencylopedic subject, the unecyclopedic content was removed, and now you're insistent that Wikipedia owes said article some sort of service by redirecting people to it. You've now resorted to veiled personal attacks on editors who disagree with you. We're done here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume you aren't pretending to misunderstand. It's not about me; it's not about the article. It's about readers coming here and wondering where the article's gone. There are blog posts asking where the WP article went. That's why we redirect. If that interferes with your narrow interpretation of the rules, too bad. kwami (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not "my narrow interpretation of the rules", it's the interpretation of the project as a whole as decided on and around WT:HATNOTE. You're arguing that for some reason this article is an exception to that, and not many people are agreeing with you. Regardless, there's a compromise in place which should enable even those with the shortest attention spans to find your expanded material. The show's over, folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So, we need to make special concessions to our readers because they aren't capable enough to properly use, not an encyclopedia, but the in-house conventions of this particular encyclopedia, and the concessions are from rules which you know about but which are not in the guideline or on its (non-archived) talk page. And random members of the public who aren't up to speed on this are deemed to have short attention spans for not reading through an article that does not cover what they're looking for. That's a bit like requiring a literacy test for voting, isn't it? kwami (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that WP:Hatnote clearly states no external links, but unfortunately does not mention whether sisterlinks are considered external or not. However there seems to be clear consensus that sisterlinks are external because they are almost always put in the external links section. I also do not know of any other article with sisterlinks in the hatnote. Beyond those simple facts is the point that Wikipedia does not need to service readers to content that was deemed not appropriate to be on the encyclopedia in the first place. When an article is deleted it is deleted. In this case content was moved to a sister site but it was for all purposes deleted from this site. We are just arguing the same points over and over since WP:Hatnote does not mention sisterlinks, so there's really no end to this argument. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd conclude that there's consensus that sisterlinks are not external, not in the sense that the guideline means, because they are not infrequently placed outside the external links section, which would contravene policy if they were external; because we have special graphic links to them, which we do not do for external linksa; and because no-one uses the "link farm" guideline to argue that they should not appear in an article. If you wish to call them external, they are clearly a special case, and so would need to be addressed specifically. kwami (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a gray area people! Now unless there's an objection to the present apparent compromise, why is this moot discussion continuing? There's other pages in the encyclopedia that need improving. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely, and after thinking about it for a while, I realised I'm perfectly happy with this compromise. Thank you Cybercobra. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

English phonemes in Na'vi?

Frommer uses "kunsip" in place of "gunship" as an English loanword in Na'vi, since Na'vi lacks both the "g" and "sh" sounds. How do the Na'vi characters pronounce "Jake Sully," since it includes two phonemes (j and short-u) that are not found in Na'vi. Do they make those sounds, or do they pronounce it something like "Tseyk Soli"? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Varies. In the film, it comes out s.t. like "Zheyk Suli", but "Tseyk" would be the assimilated version. kwami (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It does appear direct translation from English to Navi suffer the same problems as translating to, say, Japanese. Katakana is their main means of translating foreign words, and and should you hazard a guess as to what a name like "Alfred" might translate to, you might run into different pronunciations; e.g. "A Fyu Re Du" maybe? I wouldn't know for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.216.128 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not a problem specific to Japanese, but to any language with a stricter syllable structure than the one being translated. For example, Dostoyevsky in Chinese is twice as long, Tuo.si.tuo.ye.fu.si.ji. Na'vi doesn't have this problem since; it seems to have a much freeer syllable structure; it only has the much more usual problem of having a different phoneme inventory, which is a problem you will come across in almost any translation between any languages. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A made up language from some dumb movie

This, this is notable. This, of all things needs a wikipedia article. -72.147.50.237 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The original authors thought so. It certainly has enough real world, reliable, third par sources to back up its notability. Think before you speak next time. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi translators

Since I seem to have accidentally tabbed to and clicked submit before finishing filling out the change notes, I'll just put this comment here. I removed all references in the article to Na'vi translators, because such a thing does not exist. In order for something to be truly a "functional" translator, it would need to understand not just vocabulary but also context and grammar. However Machine translation is not a trivial task. The best that exists for Na'vi is mostly just simple vocabulary substitution. The result is not only grammatically incorrect, but in most cases also picks the wrong words where multiple Na'vi words would represent a single English word. In the other direction there are programs that can take Na'vi phrases and identify the words and many permutations of words, but even that is not perfect, and while it identifies grammatical components, it still requires knowledge of the language grammar to form anything more than basic sentences into actual meaning. Omängum Fra'uti (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Incredulity

I am agog that people would spend so much time not only creating these kinds of things, but discussing them. This is a made-up language some aliens spoke in a movie, right? Or am I missing something? I love research and reference as much as anyone, but IMHO it seems the expression "get a life" might come in handy right about now... For example, maybe you could get out there and volunteer to help people in need? Big Brothers/Sisters? Soup kitchens? Environmental causes? Many people would appreciate the services you could provide if you weren't spending your valuable time and brainpower on this kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.184.60 (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a hobby? Should I make fun of you for having that hobby? For all you know, the editors here might be volunteering for various causes...that doesn't mean they have to spend ever waking moment of their lives doing that. This is a hobby for some folks. Don't ever accuse someone of not doing good without knowing them personally. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you have heard of Klingon? Apparently a lot of people actually try to talk in that fictional language...

or Esperanto ... a made-up language someone proposed to be the language of the world, in the age of the League of Nations...

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You assume that people spend every waking moment learning it. Amazingly, humans have the capacity to do multiple things in their lives. For example, even though I'm typing a comment on Wikipedia at the moment, I'll still be able to go make lunch after I click "save page". Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I've even been known to walk and breathe... at the exact same time. Shocking, eh? 72.95.33.185 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"digraphs in x, a convention that appears to have no external inspiration"

One obvious case of a language with several digraphs ending in x is Internet Esperanto... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Esperanto does not have ejectives. kwami (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, but Esperanto sometimes uses X's in digraphs (see here). - JWhitt (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Although that's true, it appears the "no external inspiration" comment refers to the use of digraphs with <x> referring to ejectives which indeed does seem to be unique as a convention, i.e. using <x> in digraphs overall isn't new but using <x> in digraphs for ejectives is Wikim3 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

tsap'alute -> tsapxalute

We should really talk about "tsap'alute". This sentence has stuck around verbatim since the very beginning and I think it's time to recognize it as an error. The learnnavi.org forums have adopted the convention of "tsapxalute" which is in keeping with the known orthography of the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.164.184 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone adopting the convention of tsapxalute for tsap'alute is making a mistake. It is perfectly legal in Na'vi's syllable structure for one syllable to end in p while the next syllable begins in a glottal stop. This is not the same as an ejective consonant. It's for this reason Frommer used the x notation for ejectives in the first place. Frommer himself has confirmed the spelling tsap'alute several times. —WmAnnis (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's also worth noting that an ejective and plosive+glottal plosive cluster aren't necessarily phonetically identical. During the production of an ejective the glottis is pushed up forcing air from that point at more or less the same time the time the plosive sound is being produced. In a plosive+glottal plosive cluster, on the other hand, the plosive is produced and the followed by a glottal plosive with air being pushed out from the lungs throughout the sequence. That is to say, the first sound is a single glottalic egressive utterance while the second is a sequence of two pulmonic egressive sounds.Wikim3 (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)