A Na’vi alphabet

Kaltxì, ma oeyä eylan. Sunu oeru fwa fìtsengit terok oel nìmun. It’s nice to be back after my hiatus.

In this post it’s my pleasure to convey to you some terrific work of several of our Sulfätu leLì’fya—Language Masters.

Our friends Kemaweyan, Plumps, Prrton, and Tirea Aean have come up with a uniquely Na’vi way of listing and pronouncing the 33 phonemes (distinct sounds) in the language—20 consonants, 7 vowels, 2 “pseudo-vowels” (ll, rr), and 4 diphthongs (aw, ay, ew, ey). Here’s their list:

( ’ ) tìFtang, A, AW, AY, Ä, E, EW, EY, Fä, Hä, I, Ì,

KeK, KxeKx, LeL, ’Ll, MeM, NeN, NgeNg, O, PeP, PxePx,

ReR, ’Rr, Sä, TeT, TxeTx, Tsä, U, Vä, Wä, Yä, Zä

As you see, in reciting this alphabet you pronounce the vowels, pseudo-vowels, and diphthongs exactly as they sound. The consonants, though, are interesting: there’s a distinction between those that can’t come at the end of a syllable and those that can. For the former group, you just add the vowel ä to get the name of the consonant: , , , etc. For the latter group, you use the vowel e but you also put the consonant at the end of the name, keeping it capitalized: KeK, KxeKx, Lel, MeM, etc. I really like how the names of these sounds reflect something about how they’re used. (The exception is the first letter of the alphabet, the glottal stop; if it followed the rule, its name would be ’e’, but that might be a challenge to distinguish from E. Instead, the word tìFtang, meaning “stop,” is used.)

As for the ordering, which largely parallels that of Roman-based alphabets on Earth, Prrton writes: “The order is sadly determined by ‘Rrtan ‘informatics’ conventions that we can’t do much about. This is how Excel et all sort (with the exception of our having Txetx come before Tsä). We’ll just have to manually compensate for that when required.”

How do you ask how a word is spelled? “Spelling” is pamrelfya. (Recall that “writing” is pamrel.)

So, from the most formal way to the most colloquial:

  1. Tsalì’uri fko pamrel si fyape? ‘How is that word written?’ (Literally: ‘As for that word, how does one write (it)?’
  2. Pamrelfyari fyape? ‘How do you spell it?’ (Literally: ‘As for (its) spelling, how?’)
  3. Pamrel fyape? ‘How do you write it?’ (Most colloquial)


–Lì’uri alu tskxe pamrel fyape? ‘How do you spell the word tskxe?’

Pamrelfya lu na Tsä, KxeKx, E. ‘It’s spelled ts, kx, e.’ (Literally: (Its) spelling is like ts,
kx, e.)

Note that this Na’vi alphabet reflects a phonemic analysis of the language: for example, the word tskxe has 3 phonemes—not 5!—which is paralleled in giving the spelling. And if a Pandoran linguist invented an indigenous alphabetical writing system for Na’vi, it would take only 3 distinct symbols to write that word.

This entry was posted in General, New!. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to A Na’vi alphabet

  1. Olo'eyktan says:

    thanks for this great update, will add it to the italian manual soon

  2. Kxantis says:

    Kaltxi, irayo!!

  3. Plumps says:

    Ma Karyu,

    ngaru tsulfä!

    Tsari ngaru seiyi irayo.

  4. Kxrekorikus says:

    Seiyi irayo ngar.

    Oel fpìl futa txana Sutel fì’upxaret kin.

  5. Nantang Atswusayon says:

    txantsan! fì’upxare sunu oeru. 😀 sìlpey oe tsnì fìkem sivi alu pivlltxe lì’fyateri leNa’vi nga frakrr. kxawm nga zaya’u ne PNgN ulte sänumvit kivar aynumeyur. ngeyä aylì’u lu yawne oeru nìtxan.

  6. Tirea Aean says:

    Srane! now everyone knows about it XD

    and as for this:
    –Lì’uri alu tskxe pamrel fyape? ‘How do you spell the word tskxe?’

    This PROVES my point that one CANNOT use san and sìk to give an airquote vibe to the word tskxe: (but attribution by a should be used instead, kefyak?)

    -Lì’u san tskxe sìk pamrel fyape? ‘how do you spell the word “tskxe”‘
    THIS is how everyone everywhere on the forum seems to use san and sìk half the time. some forget that direct speech is only type allowed, and I always thought that san and sìk were for quoting speech from you or another person…not necessarily being completely equal to how we sawtute use quotation marks. confirmation so i can sleep at night?

    Irayo seiyi nìtxan ma Pawl furia nìmun pamrel si fìtseng

    • Pawl says:

      Irayo, ma Tirea Aean. Srane–ngaru tìyawr nìwotx!

      This is actually something I’ve been meaning to mention, so thanks for bringing it up.

      First, let me just say that I’ve been TOTALLY bowled over by the facility so many people are developing in written communication! Furia fyape fkol serar lì’fyati awngeyä, leiu set nìlaw pxaya sute a oeto lu sìltsan! (I debated for a second between leiu and längu, but there’s no question it’s a positive development. 🙂 )

      One thing I have noticed, though, is the overuse of san . . . sìk. These words are NOT a general substitute for quotation marks–we still need those. As you’ve pointed out, san . . . sìk is used for indirect speech, when you’re quoting what someone has said. So they’re typically preceded by some form of the verb plltxe. As I think everyone knows by now, Na’vi prefers direct to indirect speech. So to translate something like ‘Kamun said he would come,’ (where he = Kamun), you’d say:

      Poltxe Kamun san oe zasya’u sìk. (That is, ‘Kamun said, “I will come.”‘)

      (The sìk can be omitted if the speaker finishes with the quoted material and doesn’t go on until someone else has spoken.)

      But for most other uses of quotation marks–for example, the “airquote vibe” T.A. mentions (great term!)–san . . . sìk is inappropriate.

      Hivahaw nìmwey, ma Tirea Aean.

      • Plumps says:

        Furia fyape fkol serar lì’fyati awngeyä, leiu set nìlaw pxaya sute a oeto lu sìltsan!

        I am intrigued about that usage… Does that mean that the interrogative pronouns can be used sentence-internally to introduce a subordinate clause?

        I was under the impression that there would be a difference between, say, How are we going to do it? and He didn’t understand how we did it.

        Up until now, I (and I guess a lot of us) used the structure Pol ke tslolam fya’ot a kem si awnga. “He didn’t understand the way that we did it.” to avoid an interrogative pronoun within a sentence…

        Clearance on that would be great! 🙂

        • Kemaweyan says:

          Nìngay oeyä eltur kop tìtxen si fìtìpawm. Srane, oel fpamìl futa ke tsun fko fìfya sivar fìfnelì’ut ulte frakrr pamlltxe tsafya a pamrel soli nga. Irayo, ma tsmukan, txantsana tìpawm a oe kop nivew tivel tìoeyktìngit 😉

        • Sìltsana tìpawm…

          Slä tsameu ke lu tenga ‘u…

          The interrogative there was not creating a subordinate, it was just part of a clause, the “furia” was creating the subordinate.

          Furia fyape fkol serar lì’fyati awngeyä, leiu set nìlaw pxaya sute a oeto lu sìltsan!

          The alternative that I think many people would have worded this (Keeping the rest of the structure the same) would be more like…

          Fya’ori a fkol serar lì’fyati awngeyä, leiu set nìlaw pxaya sute a oeto lu sìltsan!

          Or perhaps keeping even closer to the original structure…
          Furia fya’o fkol serar lì’fyati awngeyä, leiu set nìlaw pxaya sute a oeto lu sìltsan!

          Not a huge difference there… But that still leaves the question of why the interrogative there. If I may take a stab (Txo tìkxey oer, rutxe piveng ma Karyu Pawl) it seems like it is setting up a question and response in one sentence. The question is the topic, and the rest of it is the response to the question. But this is nothing like the beginner mistake of using an interrogative word in place of a relative word.

          In that sense, I think perhaps it would be related to something like the English sentence, “Where did he go but to visit his mother” – which might be similarly said in Na’vi as “Furia po kolä peseng, sa’nokit peyä frrfen.

          • Prrton says:

            it seems like it is setting up a question and response in one sentence. The question is the topic, and the rest of it is the response to the question.

            This was also my interpretation. The ‘atmosphere’ of it rings similar in my ears to «ftxey _____, ftxey _____, ______.» or «yola krr, txana krr, ke tsranten.» It is idiomatically Na’vi to me.

          • Kemaweyan says:

            Kxawm oel tslolam säfpìlit ngeyä, ma Prrton. Ha ral tseyä lu fwa tìpamìri alu “fyape fkol serar lì’fyati awngeyä”, (nì’eyng oe plltxe) leiu set nìlaw pxaya sute a oeto lu sìltsan. Irayo, set fì’u lu law oer 😉

      • Tirea Aean says:

        Irayo seiyi ma Pawl.

        yeah. Plumps and the rest took my question..I would have expected furia fya’o a instead of furia fyape. I keep telling people that interrogatives cannot be used in non-question statements like

        I see what you did there
        (I see the action which you did there)
        so that’s where you went
        (so that is the place to which you went)
        that’s who started it all….etc
        (that is the person who started it all)

        i probably wont sleep at night till i know this one either! HRH

        but as i am reading these comments, namely Omängum, I think it has the same vibe as the construction of “how did he do that(?), the world will never know (as for that)” is that what’s goin on here? that seems to make the most sense.

  7. Txur'Itan says:

    Time for an alphabet song!

  8. Kemaweyan says:

    Irayo seiyi, ma Karyu.

    Fìtrr oe pamängkxo ‘eylanhu alu Sireayä mokri, ulte pol poleng ‘ut a oeyä eltur tìtxen soli. Kxawm set zene fko pivlltxe san HäRäRHä sìk krr a new pivlltxe san hrh sìk, kefyak?

  9. Kä'eng says:

    Nice to see the topical used with pamrel si for the thing being written. I always cringe when I see something like pamrel si ‘upxarer or pamrel si vurur… the dative ought to be reserved for the person(s) being written to, tì’efumì oeyä.

    • Pawl says:

      Ngaru tìyawr, ma Kä’eng. Mllte oe.

      But pamrel si is tricky, since it goes against the general rule that the objects of si-construction verbs are in the dative. (Example: Po awngaru kavuk soli. ‘He betrayed us,’ where the structure is more like ‘He did betrayal to us.’)

      If pamrel si followed this standard pattern, then in a sentence like ‘She wrote me a message,’ you’d have two datives, one for ‘message’ and one for ‘me.’ Although I can’t think of a situation where that would create an ambiguity (it’s unlikely you’d confuse what’s written with whom it’s written to), that structure is awkward. (With other verbs, real ambiguities could arise: if, say, there were a si-construction verb that meant ‘send one person to another,’ then with a two-dative construction you wouldn’t be able to tell if Loak was sent to Peyral or Peyral to Loak.)

      You might try to get around the problem by using fpi for the indirect object–but that won’t work, because fpi really means ‘for the benefit or sake of.’ So if I wrote a message fpi nga, it would mean that I was somehow doing it for your benefit rather than just sending it to you, e.g. you weren’t able to write it yourself and I was writing it for you.

      So as you point out, we use the topical case for the thing being written. That works fine if that thing is definite–that is, if the listener can identify what’s being referred to (for example, if it has already been introduced into the conversation):

      Tsa’upxareri ngaru pamrel soli trram. ‘I wrote you that message yesterday.’ More literally: ‘As for that message, I wrote to you yesterday.’ Here, the topic ‘that message’ is definite, since it’s already been brought up.

      But if the message is indefinite, the topical case doesn’t work as well, since topics are usually definite. So ‘Upxareri ngaru pamrel soli trram can certainly mean ‘I wrote you THE message yesterday.’ Can it also mean ‘I wrote you A message yesterday’? Since there are no articles per se in Na’vi and nouns can be either definite or indefinite, I guess it could. But something about it rubs me the wrong way.

      For these reasons I think we need a simpler way to say ‘write’–a standard transitive verb where the agent takes -l and the object -t. Trouble is, it’s unlikely such a simple verb would have developed on Pandora, since the Na’vi don’t have a written language! One solution is to borrow a term that already exists in another context–perhaps something like ‘compose’ or ‘arrange’–that could be adapted for use as ‘write.’ I’ll be thinking about it . . .

      • Wm Annis says:

        But if the message is indefinite, the topical case doesn’t work as well, since topics are usually definite.

        Ooh ooh ooh ooh!

        Don’t mind me. I always hoot like a howler monkey when a grammatical question I’ve had for months is answered.

      • Prrton says:

        I’ve long been under the assumption that the Japanese verb for ‘to write’ was simply borrowed from ‘to scratch’. They are both kaku. Clearly there was scratching going on in Japan before writing. A new root for ‘to carve’ or even our existing verb «weyn» seems to me a plausible way to go for something overtly transitive.

      • One solution is to borrow a term that already exists in another context–perhaps something like ‘compose’ or ‘arrange’–that could be adapted for use as ‘write.’

        On that note, I’d like to mention that Klingon has three words which could all be used in lieu of “write” – qon, gher and ghItlh. The first one is glossed as “record, compose” and refers to the act of, well, recording or composing something. To the Klingons, things like songs and stories are thought of as already floating around out there somewhere, and it is the function of the composer (qonwI’) to record them.

        gher means – more or less – “formulate, compile, pull together”, and refers to the bringing together of preexisting notions into a new whole, whereas ghItlh is “mark, engrave, incise” and is used for the physical act of inscribing something (not necessarily words). The latter word also doubles as the noun “manuscript”.

        Thus, you would qon a poem, gher a shopping list, and ghItlh the name of your loved one on a tree.

        • Prrton says:

          It occurs to me that Na’vi already has a bit of this (potential) for distinction too.

          – Relit tsun fko ngivop.
          – Relit tsun fko wiveyn.

          Since so much of our communication is currently written using keyboard-based technology, I also suggest that a root for “to tap out” (in the sense of ‘to bang out an e-mail’) would be useful (and might mirror the typing behavior on portable tablet-esque devices that the Na’vi may have seen the sawtute engaged in for the setting of the film). “Hitting keys & buttons”

          • Kemaweyan says:

            Nìngay.. txo mungwrr fwa san oe pamrel soli ‘upxarer (ngaru) sìk pivllxte san oel ngolop ‘upxaret ngaru sìk nìftue. Fpìl oel futa tsaw lu sìltsana fya’o.

  10. Wm Annis says:

    I understand the spelling convention for the normal consonants (sort of), but what purpose is served by the rather strange camel-case (computer-sciency talk for thingsLikeThis) in tìFtang? I can see why that makes sense for proper nouns (leNa’vi), but it seems completely out of place in tìftang.

    • Pawl says:

      Ah, CamelCase! This is something I don’t have strong feelings about either way, so I’d be interested in hearing opinions from the community.

      In my original written Na’vi–that is, the material I submitted for the Avatar dialog and the video games–I don’t believe I used CamelCase at all, except with proper nouns. So I wrote “Tree of Voices” as Utral Aymokriyä, not Utral ayMokriyä, as I believe many people would prefer to write it today. Here’s what appeared in the “Language Document” that I turned in to Fox towards the end of 2009:

      “Proper names are capitalized, as in English. ‘Na’vi’ is always capitalized. If a capitalized noun is prefixed, either a hyphen is used, e.g. le-Na’vi, or the capital occurs in the middle of the word, e.g. leNa’vi. This aspect of Na’vi spelling remains to be standardized.”

      Later, I noticed that CamelCase was turning up more and more in people’s writing in words with grammatical prefixes like ay-, le-, and nì-. That seemed interesting to me, and I’ve pretty much gone along with this developing convention.

      But what do you think? What are the pluses and minuses of CamelCase in Na’vi? If we all agree it’s useful in certain . . . um . . . cases, should there be limits, or should CC be freely applied whenever you want to capitalize a word beginning with a grammatical prefix? Does tìFtang look strange to you? Do you like it any more or less than Tìftang?

      For some brief background material, here is a short article pointing out how CC is used in Irish–and also in computer programming, although that’s less relevant to Na’vi. (When I took a look at Irish years ago prior to visiting Ireland, I was struck by how common CC seemed to be.)

      And the Wikipedia article on CamelCase has some nice examples from several languages. See especially the “Inflectional prefixes” section.

      • Wm Annis says:

        Well, with proper names it makes sense if we’re going to stick with Euro-style capitalization habits. As the WP article shows, this is normal with proper names and prefixes or the like in plenty of languages using the Latin alphabet.

        Outside of that usage I don’t care for camel-case at all. It makes Na’vi look rather like Klingon, or at least a good deal more alien than it does already, without conferring obvious (to me) benefit. We wouldn’t start a normal sentence with tìftang or tìFtang, but with Tìftang. I’m not sure what tìFtang gives us, apart from a whiff of the exotic. It’s a normal, content-bearing word, unlike PeP and the rest.

        • Plumps says:

          That’s exactly how Irish spelling conventions treat the changes of eclipse, they would write something like tìFtang and think it completely normal 😉

          It’s more common for noun prefixes. In a headline the ‘normal’ form of an t-oileán “the island” would become tOileán

      • Prrton says:

        I am somewhat of a proponent of CamelCase for a few reasons.

        1) I’m pretty sure JakeSully was thusly named in the film in the subtitles. (Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.)

        2) For proper names it atmospherically serves a similar purpose as the “Wm” of “Wm Annis” (for ME).

        3) I like the idea of its being used in titles (à la newspaper/magazine article titles) to call attention to it for people who don’t/won’t understand what’s written, but will still recognize (by the style of the capitalization) that what is written is in Na’vi. (Essentially it becomes something of an advertising vehicle (or ‘gimic’ depending on one’s point of view)).

        However, all of that said, I’m perfectly happy to cease and desist if there is general consensus in the community that the orthographic practice is distasteful or somehow harmful to the image of the language.

        I feel that it is only proper and practical in these situations:

        1) Proper names of sawtute or ’Rrtan entities where the Na’vi would not understand the word boundaries.

        2) Titles of articles, events, etc. (in which there is some sense of ceremony)

        3) The ‘letter’ names. (Primarily to distinguish them from other lexical items with the same pronunciations that may emerge over the course of the evolution of the vocabulary. At word (syllable) FINAL position, I feel that they should only be used in the letter names.

        1) TsyeykSuli
        2) ayMokri Kìte’efpi Lì’fyayä leNa’vi
        3) PeP. ’Rr. TeT. O. NeN.

        As there are standards for capitalization in newspaper article names, book names, magazine article names, etc. in most languages, we’ll need some guidelines for Na’vi as well relating to example #2 immediately above. Which of these would remain uncapitalized?
        – ay-
        – me-
        – pxe-
        – fne-
        – le-
        – tì-
        – nì-
        – fì-
        – fay-
        – tsa-
        – tsay-…

        In ‘tìFtang’ the capitalized ‘F’ harkens (for ME) to its being the ‘proper name’ of the glottal stop, but I don’t feel strongly about it. It only serves to point out that ‘tìFtang’ is not just any old «tìftang» in the midst of or at the end of some process.

      • Plumps says:

        I feel I’m somewhat responsible for this development as well… As you already pointed out, the spelling convention of CamelCase in Irish is somewhat like this (to be honest the exotic look that this orthography gave to Irish was one of the reasons to start studying it…) That’s why, personally, I don’t mind the capitalization within a word…

        Prrton made some excellent points and it is how I use them as well…

        As I ‘justified’ my use in the German subforum the other day in a game we were playing: It also helps beginners to instantly see where the root word begins. People new to the language might struggle with recognising all the prefixes right away and with some constructions it can be difficult to see whether the example is a word on its own or whether it has been modified by a prefix or infix.

        As was already stated, I would only use it as part of a headline or proper nouns like your given example of ayRam aLusìng.
        But of course, it’s only a convention that we come up with. Keeping the fictional world in mind, Na’vi is a spoken language – whatever we decide, I would also be fine with writing only in lower case letters 😉

        • Wm Annis says:

          It also helps beginners to instantly see where the root word begins.

          Well, we already have a way to help beginners see how larger words are constructed. I’m pretty sure all of us would spell the normal word as tìftang in the middle of a sentence. If we wanted to explain it to beginners, we’d use tì-ftang. Why would it get a morphological analysis in normal text only when capitalized?

          My second problem with wide use of things like tìFtang is that it is at variance with a principle Pawl has firmly stated several times, namely that most of time the derivational affixes are not productive. The camel-case spelling draws undue attention to the derivational process.

          That’s exactly how Irish spelling conventions treat the changes of eclipse, they would write something like tìFtang and think it completely normal.

          I’m not entirely sure of that. I think they’d understand meSìftang, but the derivational prefixes are a different sort of thing than the various mutations that the beginnings of Celtic words undergo.

          I can see a reasonable argument being made for the number prefixes and prenouns using camel-case in things like titles, etc. (though I still wouldn’t care for it much), but using it with derivational affixes seems misleading about the nature of the words.

          • Prrton says:

            This is a good point and if CamelCase survives (for headlines, etc.) this needs to be front and center in the discussion of the formulation of the “proper” conventions/rules. I can see tì-, nì-, le-, fne-, ay-, me-, pxe- going different directions entirely. At the time that I first used tì- and nì- in this fashion there had been absolutely no concrete discussion within the learning community about productivity.

            I also believe that for headlines/titles cC. could be optional (in a similar fashion to finding headlines in all lower case in Wired magazine).

            Let’s not forget that this path will also likely lead to questions about the capitalization of freestanding adpositions (hì’ia aylì’u) as well (and the point made by Mikko Wilson below).

            I have a personal bias towards creative typography (to a point) and likely always will.

            To funky or to traditional, that is the question, tì’efumì oeyä.

      • Mikko Wilson says:

        One caution I see with using Camel Case solely to mark prefixes, is the lack of an equivalent for suffixes and the potential for ambiguity.

        natkenong aSìltsan
        kesìltsaNa natkenong

        Obviously those aren’t proper nouns but it serves as a (probably humorous) example. Though perhaps a poor one, as a- isn’t a prefix you’d ever use at the start of a sentence, and very rarely – if at all – on a proper noun.

        I could see it used with other language guidelines though – used on words always capitalized (like proper nouns).

        – Mikko

      • Taronyu says:

        I am, simply put, a fan of CamelCase.

        Others have laid out the reasons.

      • I don’t care much for KämllKeysì, to be honest. I can accept its use in things like leNa’vi, alu when building upon something which is already a proper noun, but I’d prefer to spell Ayram Alusìng and its ilk thus. Anything else just serves to distract me rather than facilitate whatever it is meant to facilitate.

  11. Wm Annis says:

    Pedantic, dilettante lexicographers want to know — where is the accent in pamrelfya? 😉

  12. Gisle Aune says:

    Good to hear from you again after so long. It’s very nice to see that you put your effort into this masterpiece of yours.

    Irayo nìtxan, ulte sìlpey oe tsni nga pamrel siyevi nìmun ye’rìn.

  13. tigermind says:

    Tewti, ma karyu Pawl! Fwa tsere’a oel ngeyä aylì’ut nìmun oeru teya si. I’m especially happy to see you responding to people’s comments. I get blue warm fuzzies all over =)

    I have nothing substantial to add to the discussion about CamelCase, except to say that, as someone with no experience with languages with CC, i’ve found things like “leNa’vi” fairly intuitive, but things like “tìFtang,” erm, not.

    • Prrton says:

      … as someone with no experience with languages with CC, i’ve found things like “leNa’vi” fairly intuitive, but things like “tìFtang,” erm, not.

      I really like the simplicity and honesty in this response. that “erm” says A LOT! 😉

      • tigermind says:

        Irayo, ma Prrton. I’m glad it said something to you. I thought i was being vague…

        What i was trying to say (and may have managed, in spite of my best efforts…) is that CC for proper nouns seems intuitive to me, but deciding some noun stems are more capital-worthy than their grammatical affixes…

        I mean, how would you CC a word like “tìmweypey”: tìMweypey? tìmweyPey? And how about “srese’a”? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go…?

        • Plumps says:

          I mean, how would you CC a word like “tìmweypey”: tìMweypey? tìmweyPey? And how about “srese’a”? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go…?

          These are excellent examples, I didn’t think of them … indeed, with those, I would give up CC … hmmm, that doesn’t make it easier, right? 😉

          As I hinted at earlier, for me it’s just something that could be used in headlines or titles. It’s a convention, same as capitalization at the beginning of a sentence. There are people who write everything in lower case because they say it’s a spoken language – there you don’t have capital letters either 😉

  14. Alton DeHaan (Kayrìlien Rolyu) says:

    In my opinion, CamelCase is either confusing or downright gimmicky unless its used with proper nouns, but that’s just me. I can see how it would help new learners with the language, but that’s why we use hyphens and plus signs to mark affixes and lenition, and ‘s for infixes. Again, since the Na’vi themselves wouldn’t have an opinion, as their language is not written, I would imagine that the use of CamelCase in Na’vi transcriptions would be solely up to…well, Dr. Grace. 😀

    I’m thinking that if there is a Na’vi version of Brian Wilson somewhere on Pandora, he probably wouldn’t capitalize his most famous album like this: LRRtOK

  15. Tirea Aean says:

    Ma Pawl, i just had an idea:

    would it be possible for you to make an audio clip version of this alphabet? either an audio of reading the whole alphabet OR a clip for each letter?

    I think it would TOTALLY help new guys and nonspeaking/nonlistening guys know the Na’vi spoken phonetics and what Na’vi really sounds like. that way listening to Na’vi will be easier to them.

  16. Jameso says:

    I agree with Tirea! Why not to make some audio clips!? I know you’re busy but thats good for beginners. And me too cause I am a beginner.

  17. ShavedTailLouie says:

    Hearing the language is so crucial. I can sound it out but I never know if I’m sounding it out correctly. I have been relagated to re-watching the movie and picking up pieces from other sites but it would be nice to hear it from the master.

  18. Kifkeyä Nari says:

    Ma Pawl,
    On learnnavi forum some of us are wondering how great it would be to have Na’vi lines at least for the Na’vi conversations on the DVD.
    Searching for it we found a very good project which format is ready for DVDs and can be used for the original version.
    It looks quite good, and it would be great if you would kindly check it. And if you could also help to make these lines be available in every country on the DVDs.
    We do not know the makers of this project, but we are pretty sure they would not mind their work being used…
    So do you think it is a good idea, and can you help us achieve it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *