Kaltxì, ma frapo!
The projects I’ve been working on seem to have slowed down a bit, at least temporarily, which provides more time for me to get to my big backlog of Na’vi contributions and comments. For right now, let me say a few things about two recent comments that I thought might be of general interest.
The first concerns Varang’s line to her warriors, ’Ur fkivan tstew! ‘Do not show fear!’ which I discussed last time. As I mentioned, ’ur is a noun having to do with how something comes across to you—the sight, look, or appearance of someone or something. So this brief sentence is an idiomatic way of saying, “Let your appearance look brave.” However, Zángtsuva pointed out that tstew ‘brave’ is an adjective marked “for people.” The corresponding word for things is tìtstewnga’. Since ’ur is a quality or thing, not a person, why isn’t the sentence ’Ur fkivan tìtstewnga’?
Good question. In fact, the version with tìtstewnga’ is grammatically correct. However, in the context in which Varang speaks it, the original version is justified, even if it bends the rules. She wants to say something sharp and punchy, with good rhythm. ’Ur fkivan tstew! is much stronger than ’Ur fkivan tìtstewnga’. And it’s perfectly understandable.
More than that, however, the distinction between words that are ofp—only for people—and those that are nfp—not for people—can blur and change over time. The example that always comes to my mind is English healthy vs. healthful. (I see I first mentioned this in an October 2014 blog post.) When I was in school all those many years ago, I remember being taught that healthy is for living things that can experience good health. I am healthy, my son is healthy, my cat is healthy, this tree is healthy. Healthful refers to something that provides good health: healthful food, healthful exercise, a healthful mental attitude. There’s a clear distinction! Saying “These tomatoes are very healthy” only makes sense if you’re talking about tomatoes on the vine in your backyard that are growing beautifully.
Well, that distinction seems to be ancient history. “Healthful” is rarely used now, and people have no problem saying, “This restaurant serves healthy food,” not realizing that this way of speaking was once frowned upon. Language changes! So it’s not out of the question to think that tstew in Na’vi might be evolving in a similar direction, where the ofp form widens its scope and the formerly nfp form is used less and less often.
The other comment I wanted to address concerns sru, the adposition I introduced last time which means a particular kind of ‘through.’ Is it legitimate to have a Na’vi word that sounds close to a word in an Earth language that means the same thing?
I’d divide this question into two components. First, how close, really, are through [θɹu] and sru [sɾu ]? When you transcribe their pronunciations in IPA, you see only one phoneme in the two words, the vowel, that’s identical. The others—the initial consonant and the r-like one—are not. It’s certainly true that the common [s] sound and the much rarer [θ] one are phonetically similar, with [θ] sometimes replaced by [s]. For example, when Persian borrows Arabic words, the letter representing the [θ] sound in standard Arabic, ث , is always pronounced [s] in Persian. And as Plumps pointed out, you hear that substitution as well in strongly German-accented English. (I may have referenced this before, but there’s an old TV commercial for the Berlitz language school that I’ve always loved. I find its humor gentle and delightful, and I hope no one will be offended.)
That said, for most English speakers, [s] and [θ] are totally different phonemes, and think and sink are just as different from each other psychologically as are link and pink. I have to confess that when I was first considering sru, it didn’t even occur to me it might be too close in sound to through. 🙂
But there’s a more general question here: Does it ever happen that two words in completely unrelated languages are very similar, or even identical, and mean the same thing? Well, yes. Irayo to Yätù’aw for the information about the Australian language in which “dog” is dog! The example I myself always think of is mahi. In Persian, it means ‘fish.’ In Hawaiian, mahi-mahi is a certain kind of fish. Persian and Hawaiian are completely unrelated. Cue the Twilight Zone music? Nope. It’s a coincidence.
I thought I’d share this exercise with you from the linguistics workbook I wrote years ago with Edward Finegan, Looking at Languages. The idea is for students to look at similarities in different languages and decide how to explain them. Are the languages related, so that you would expect to see lots of similar things? Did one language borrow from the other? Could there be some universal tendency involved? Or is the similarity merely a coincidence? If you’re interested and you have some time, take a look! Make sure to read the introduction first. I’ve included the answer key, but don’t be tempted to check it until you’ve completed the whole exercise. Have fun!
Introduction
Items 1 – 16
Items 17 – 33
Items 34 – 42
1. B Japanese borrowed from English. 2. GR 3. GR 4. GR 5. C 6. B English borrowed from Hebrew. 7. GR 8. GR 9. B English borrowed from Chinese. 10. GR 11. B English borrowed from Greek. 12. GR 13. B French borrowed from English. 14. GR 15. B English borrowed from the ancestor of Norwegian. 16. B English borrowed from Greek. 17. C 18. UT 19. GR 20. GR 21. B Japanese borrowed from English. 22. GR 23. B Both borrowed from a third source. 24. GR 25. GR 26. C 27. B Yiddish borrowed from Hebrew. 28. GR 29. B Both borrowed from a third source (Arabic). 30. B Both borrowed from English. 31. GR 32. B English borrowed from the ancestor of Norwegian. 33. B English borrowed from French. 34. GR 35. GR 36. C 37. B English borrowed from Tongan. 38. B Japanese borrowed from Chinese. 39. B Korean borrowed from Chinese. 40. B English borrowed from Malay 41. C 42. B/GR Malay borrowed from Arabic, Yiddish borrowed from Hebrew. Hebrew and Arabic are genetically related.
Hayalovay!
ta P.







