Talk:łichííʼ

Navajo colors

Some of the Navajo colors are listed as nouns (as in "the color red" and others listed as adjectives (as in "the red apple"). I'm not sure which is correct, or if they should all be listed in both ways. Wouldn't they only be nouns with the nominalizer at the end? If an expert could direct attention to all the Navajo color entries, it would be great. 71.66.97.228 21:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Navajo does not have adjectives. The function of adjectives is usually filled by verbs, sometimes by nouns. I think łichííʼ is a noun (although it might be a verb). In any case, the colors work both as in the color red and also as in the red apple, just like the English word red works in both instances. —Stephen (Talk) 21:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the apple thought of as *being* red when saying the equivalent of something like the English "the red apple is sitting on the table"? 71.66.97.228 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean. bilasáana łichííʼ means red apple. BTW, upon reflection, I think łichííʼ is probably a verb, since it takes nominalizers such as łichííʼí. —Stephen (Talk) 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I read in an essay some time ago that in the Navajo language, the concept is that even inanimate objects described as being of a certain color are actively "being" that color (such as a lemon "is being yellow" rather than just it "is" yellow. Maybe that was not correct. 71.66.97.228 22:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they were just trying to say that Navajo uses a verb instead of a true adjective. Literally, bilasáana łichííʼ means the it-is-red apple. Japanese and Korean do the same thing, and they use verbs for adjectives. —Stephen (Talk) 22:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This helps a lot! When Japanese and Korean are translated into idiomatic English, aren't the verbs-for-adjectives just translated as adjectives, the way we would think about it in English? 71.66.97.228 22:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 赤い葡萄酒 (akai budōshu) is just translated as red wine, even though 赤い is really a verb. —Stephen (Talk) 23:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Chiming in late here, but partly why Japanese stative verbs (verbs that describe a state) that end in -い (-i) are often described as "adjectives" is partly because they conjugate in a specific way that is separate from how regular verbs conjugate (like "to be" or "to do"). That aside, they are indeed verbs in that they can form the complete predicate of a sentence -- the word 赤い on its own is a complete sentence stating that "[something previously referenced in the discussion] is red". True adjectives cannot form the complete predicate of a sentence, and require a verb to round out the thought, as in English "it is red" where the verb portion is a separate word.

Since Navajo color words (and other words that have meanings similar to English adjectives) can form complete predicates on their own, they are technically verbs, much like Japanese "-i" adjectives. -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Noun forms

I'm finding some variation in the noun form of łichííʼ + -í on the web, and even on the NV WP, where we get instances of both. Does anyone know if this is a regional difference, or if some other contextual rules are applying? The longer form appears to be much more common for the -í suffix (1880 for google:łichííʼí vs. 84 for google:łichíʼí), but slightly less common for the -ígíí suffix (54 for google:łichííʼígíí vs. 81 for google:łichíʼígíí). -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don’t understand your question. You’re asking about łichííʼ and what else? —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, to rephrase: when nominalizing łichííʼ, are there any particular reasons for adding the nominalizer directly thereafter (producing łichííʼí and łichííʼígíí), vs. shortening the penultimate syllable (producing łichíʼígíí and łichíʼí)? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I think they represent the same word. Navajo orthography has rarely been taught formally, and lots of people who write it are self-taught. That, plus the fact that there is little Navajo literature available to read and study, means that there is a lot of variation in how people spell, particular in regard to certain letters, letter combinations, and how affixes are added. It is necessary to use some fuzzy logic when reading Navajo. Some words can be spelled with considerable variation.

That’s like An ethnologic dictionary of the Navaho language by the Franciscan Fathers, written some 150 years ago. A wonderful book, and they worked so hard on it, but so much of what is in it is completely unintelligible today. They sweated blood trying to spell Navajo in a meaningful way, but today people can’t decipher a lot of it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd wondered if some of the differences I've been seeing were just conventions (or lack thereof), or if it reflected some underlying mechanic to the language that I was unaware of. Thank you for the explanation. That's interesting; makes me think of English up through the time of Chaucer and the changes in orthography as the language was read and written by more and more of the populace. No small challenge, figuring out how to write things, and how, or even whether, to account for dialectical variations. I'll certainly keep this in mind as I proceed in my studies. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember that one of the terms in the old Franciscan dictionary was nǽĕshjā bă’nă'ái (said to mean northern hawk owl). We looked at that for months before figuring out that it was probably néʼéshjaaʼ báʼałnááʼáhii. Even though we knew the approximate literal meaning ("owls which sit side by side"), even native speakers could not get it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)