Disputatio:Lingua Na'vi

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

De conversione[fontem recensere]

I took out the following -- ", "lingua ad Na'vi"; Na'vi hoc contextu nomen pro lingua est; Latinitate dare fortasse "lingua Navica" " -- because it seems to me to have no point. Latin is just a language like any other. If we were writing in English, we wouldn't say

Na'vi language (in everyday speech lì'fya leNa'vi, ['lɪʔfja lɛ'naʔvɪ]) literally "language in the direction of the Na'vi"; Na'vi in this context a name representing a language is; to English possibly to give "Na'viish language", is a language created ...

I don't think we would: I think that's making too much of a meal of it, and all those words don't really tell us anything. Na'vi is just a name. Whatever language we're writing in, it's just a name. So in English I would say:

Na'vi language (the name in Na'vi is lì'fya leNa'vi) is a language created ...

and in Latin that would be

Lingua Na'vi (hac ipsá linguá lì'fya leNa'vi) est sermo creatus ...

and I would leave all the rest out, I think. I wouldn't invent Na'viish or Navica because there's no point: it doesn't help the reader. I wouldn't say "vulgo" because that word means "in the everyday language". Well, let's be honest, Na'vi is not the everyday language :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:33, 1 Martii 2014 (UTC)

I understand. :) Yes, lì'fya leNa'vi become "Na'vi language" in English, and lingua Na'vi in Latin. But I think we should show its literal meaning to so the reader will know what it means; "language to the Na'vi" (lingua ad Na'vi in Latin), and Na'vi means "people", but as a name, that is why it has a major case. -- Donatello (disputatio) 19:05, 1 Martii 2014 (UTC).
We agree that it's a name.
Since this stuff is all made up by a professor, I'm a bit reluctant to take it too seriously :) Still, since you think this detail is important, I want to check whether you are right about the literal meaning of lì'fya leNa'vi, so please provide a link! This is not the meaning given in the Na'vi-English vocabulary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:08, 2 Martii 2014 (UTC)
OK, well, according to the source I saw -- and I don't know what other source there would be -- leNa'vi means "having to do with the Na'vi". That's not "ad Na'vi": it's a vaguely expressed and generalised relationship, for which, I'd suggest, we might get away with the Latin genitive. That would be "lingua populi Na'vi". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:51, 11 Martii 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I cannot explain why I know that... I guess I was to quick... So we might just have "(vulgo lì'fya leNa'vi, ['lɪʔfja lɛ'naʔvɪ])". :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:47, 12 Martii 2014 (UTC).
Not "vulgo", because, as I said above, that means "in the common speech". Na'vi is not the common speech: no one really speaks it at all! Hence I suggested "(hac ipsá linguá lì'fya leNa'vi)", meaning, I hope, "called, in this language itself, lì'fya leNa'vi". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:49, 12 Martii 2014 (UTC)

De terminologia lingustica[fontem recensere]

This idea may work for other sets of technical terms also. English is not a good place to start, because it is so very different from Latin. If nothing can be found in Latin dictionaries, one can try checking the translations in Romance languages (notably Italian), via Wikidata for example. One might sometimes get away with converting these Italian terms into their Latin cognates: it may be quite easy to do. That's what I did for "glottal stop". Someone may now come along and replace it with a better term -- well, that'll be great. But English words, in what's supposed to be a Latin text, are bound to be wrong and will have to go! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:52, 1 Martii 2014 (UTC)

I see. :) Thanks for the Latin word for "glottal stop". I was not sure how to name it. -- Donatello (disputatio) 19:20, 1 Martii 2014 (UTC).

Oe in Na'vi language[fontem recensere]

The oe written in Na'vi words is pronounced "oh-eh", and in the movie Avatar and when the creator of the language Paul Frommer speaks Na'vi (which can be seen in videos in YouTube) it is pronounced "weh", so it seem like that it's pronounced in two ways. The website I took the pronounciation from, "Learn Na'vi", and its Na'vi-English and English-Na'vi dictionaries only mention the "oh-eh" pronounciation. The website might have skipped to mention that. But if we look up tìoeyktìng, "explanation", in the both dictionaries, they say this:

tìoeyktìng: [tɪ.'o.ɛjk.tɪŋ] PF n. explanation (derived from «eyk» cause (root)) (Pronounced [tɪ."wɛjk.tɪŋ] in casual speech)
explanation: [tɪ.'o.ɛjk.tɪŋ] PF n. tìoeyktìng (derived from «eyk» cause (root)) (Pronounced [tɪ."wɛjk.tɪŋ] in casual speech)

The oe can be seen in words and sentences like oe, "I", "me", oeyk, "cause", tìoeyktìng, "explanation", oel ngati kameie, "I see you", "hello", and Oeru syaw (fko) ..., "my name is ..."

How should we deal with this problem?

Donatello (disputatio) 02:41, 12 Martii 2014 (UTC).

We follow sources. So, if you are giving the pronunciation of a particular word, you should follow a source. If sources differ, then you can note the difference and explain it by citing one of those explanations about "in casual speech".
Paul Frommer wasn't doing anything strange here. In some languages, in some contexts, an unstressed vowel may well reduce to a semivowel in casual speech. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 12 Martii 2014 (UTC)