Canon/2013

The Na'vi language canon is the complete collection of information about the Na'vi language provided by authoritative sources, namely Paul Frommer and the creators of Avatar (James Cameron and Twentieth Century Fox).

The canon comprises two things:

• words and phrases spoken or written in Na'vi
• descriptions of the linguistic elements of Na'vi such as orthography, morphology, syntax, and grammar

The Na'vi words and phrases from canonical sources are presented or linked to on the Corpus page (where copyright allows). Documentation, explanation, and analysis of Na'vi linguistics are presented on other Learn Na'vi wiki pages (Phonology, Morphology, Grammar, etc.). This page serves to document the canonical sources themselves. The majority of the examples on this page come from email correspondances with Frommer.

---

This page includes information from the year 2013. To access past information please see:

• Canon

Ftärpa and Skiempa

Reported by Markì and Wm.annis in this forum post, Jan 12 2013.

Email from Frommer to Markì:

OK, regarding mìn and kìm:

Mìn is an intransitive verb meaning 'turn' or 'rotate.' So:

Mìn ne ftärpa.

'Turn to the left.'

Kunsìpìri txana tìmeyp lu tsyal a mìn.

'The gunship's main weakness is the rotor system.'

Kìm is a transitive verb meaning 'spin'--i.e. spin something:

Pol rumit kolìm.

'He spun the ball.'

As you see, kìm is roughly equivalent to the causative of mìn, meykìn: to spin something is to make the thing turn.

Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.

Email to Wm.annis about the same matter:

Of course, mìn ne skiempa is well formed too. (Stress on the 1st syllable: SKI-em-pa.)

Ftärpa and skiempa should be in the dictionary. They aren't in my spreadsheet, so I'll add them there too.

Pänutìng

Reported by Wm.annis in this forum post, Jan 26 2013.

I asked K Pawl if he happened to have a quick example of how pänutìng should be used from either the game or movie dialog that didn't make it into the final cut. He sent this in reply,

Quote from: K Pawl

From the movie:

TSU'TEY: Neytiriti fkol pänutolìng oeru!

'Neytiri was promised to me!'

So now we know for sure it's transitive.

Comparisons and Gerund

Reported by Plumps in this forum post, Jan 31 2013.

We know that we can handle ‘I am as fast as you’ with the ‘A lu nìftxan ADJ na/pxel B’. Is this also possible with other verbs? E.g. Oe tul nìftxan nìwin na nga ‘I run as fast as you’?

Yes, that’s fine. Here, nìftxan is used before an ADV, not an ADJ, but that’s perfectly OK.

The same question with unequal comparisons: Our paradigm there is ‘A to B lu ADJ’. Is this also possible with other verbs? Like 'Oe to nga tul nìwin ‘I run faster than you’.

Fine.

And if the particle to behaves like sì, it should theoretically be possible to use it with a case ending, right? Like Oel to ngal yerikit taron nìltsan ‘I hunt yerik better than you’ ?

That seems fine to me as well.

With the superlative, we have examples of lu ADJ frato, N a-ADJ frato, V frato but not ADV frato. So these should be correct: Po lu win frato. ‘S/He is the fastest.’ (faster than all) Oel tsole’a fwampopit awin frato. ‘I saw the fastest Tapirus.’

Those are all OK.

Nga oer tsranten frato. ‘You matter the most to me.’

Yes, that’s OK. But I’m wondering now about the “V frato” examples. Have you come across others in this category, besides tsranten? Whereas frato is freely used with all (scalable) adjectives and adverbs, I think its use with verbs should be quite restricted. For example, what would it mean to say, “Pol yerikit taron frato”? You need an adverb here, I think: “Pol yerikit taron nìltsan frato”—He hunts yerik better than anyone, or, the best of all.

Is po tul nìwin frato ‘s/he runs the fastest’ also correct?

Sure, that’s fine.

And concerning gerund formation of compound verbs.

As to the gerund with compound verbs: good question! I hadn't given that consideration. But the answer is clear in my mind: it's tìyomtusìng, not *yomtìtusìng.

I don’t know if you can provide me with a short answer whether we could use kelsar (kel.SAR, from ke+l(e)sar) to mean ‘useless, in vain’?

Tsalì'u alu kelsar kosman lu nì'aw!

Fìpo and lapo

Reported by Markì in this forum post, March 28 2013.

From Karyu Pawl:

Fìpo and lapo are a pair. Currently they're glossed "this one (person or thing)" and "other one (person or thing)" respectively. The original sentence from the Avatar script (which didn't make :it into the film) was this, where Jake is discussing the gunship's rotor system: "See, when this one goes this way, the other one goes the other way." I used fìpo and lapo there, clearly for inanimates. :Rethinking this years later, I think it could still be justified, as in the way some people use "guy" colloquially for objects rather than people. For example, if you're trying to assemble some piece of :furniture you bought at Ikea and there's a part that doesn't seen to fit anywhere, you can hold it up and ask, "Where does this guy go?

Honorifics in the third person

Reported by Prrton in this forum post, April 02 2013. I asked about it in the context of the Na’vi belief system and got this in response via e-mail today (02 April 2013):

From Pawl:

I've thought of the honorifics as being first and second person only, mainly for ceremonial use although they inevitably get extended to non-face-to-face contexts. I don't think the Na'vi need honorific :third-person pronouns. If talking about rather than to Eywa, they can substitute Nawma Sa'nok for variety. Or maybe even just Sa'nok if the context is clear.

So there you have it. There are no 3rd person honorific pronouns. It's official. You can show respect by using the entity's name or a metaphorical title (i.e. by NOT using a pronoun).

Fnetxum, ke

Reported by Blue Elf in this forum post, April 23 2013. Approximately month ago there was discussion about fnetxum and ke in dictionary thread. As no solution was found, I asked our biggest authority, Paul. Here are his answers:

From Blue Elf to Pawl:

About a month ago there was small discussion about fnetxum, which is defined as "allergic" (adjective). However we do not understand why it is adjective. Seems that words is created as fne-txum, :literally kind/type of-poison, so base word is noun and result should be noun as well, as this is productive process.

Sample sentence is

Oeri lu X fnetxum -> I'm allergic to X (but literal translation sounds strange: As for me, X is allergic. More logical would be IMHO:

X-ri oe lu fnetxum - > As for X I'm allergic)

However, this type of sentences allows two usages:

X<noun> lu Y<adjective>

X<noun> lu Y<noun>

This supports idea that fnetxum could be noun, with meaning like "allergen (thing which causes allergy)" :

Oeri lu X fnetxum. = "I am allergic to X'." -> As for me, X is allergen

Our discussion lead to no result, and probably nobody else sent you question about this matter; so I dare to do this. Can you give us explanation why fnetxum is adjective and if it wouldn't be more :appropriate to change it to noun?

From Pawl:

About fnetxum: You're absolutely right--it's not an adjective, it's a noun. The label in the dictionary is wrong. I'll notify Mark Miller about that. As you realized, fnetxum basically means "kind or :variety of poison," but it's also used to mean "allergen." A literal translation of "Oeri lu X fnetxum" would be, "As for me, X is an allergen," but of course a much more idiomatic translation into :English is "I'm allergic to X."

From Blue Elf to Pawl:

And one more simple question: In our community dictionary I noticed ke is defined as an adverb, although IMHO it should be particle (to create negative verbs). Is it correct? This question also :wasn't solved in discussion.

From Pawl:

As for ke, well, I admit it's an unusual adverb. But dictionaries typically treat negative particles as adverbs. In a way, the negative element comments on or modifies the verb. If you say, for example, :"He does not swim," you're saying "In what way does he swim? In no way at all!" So we can consider ke as an adverb modifying the verb. Of course it has other uses as well. Perhaps a more complete :designation would be, "ADV, PART." I'll think about that.

The adverb marker nì- and 'e' of a root word

Reported by Titstewan in this forum post, Oct 09 2013.

I've asked Pawl about *nìeyawr, because it was not clear how we should write that word. I've mentioned in my e-mail "[...] if the stress be on ‘e’, ‘ì’ from nì- drops, and if the stress be not on ‘e’, ‘e’ drops."

From his mail:

You've done a very nice job of analysis! What you've determined about nì- being added to a root that starts with e is absolutely correct. It does indeed depend on the stress.

If the stress is on the e, the e "overpowers" the ì of nì-, which then drops. So, as you've noted,

*nìetrìp > netrìp

But if the e is unstressed, then the ì of nì- overpowers the e. So:

*nìeyawr > nìyawr

You've determined the rules correctly!

There are some exceptions, though. For example, in the Weaving Song, there's this line:

Katot täftxu oel nìean nìrim 'I weave the rhythm in yellow and blue'

Here the unusual word nìean 'in blue' has remained in its original form, without becoming *nean.