Talk:Na'vi/Nouns

Glossing abbreviations
You reverted my edit where I changed the gloss from "" to "", giving the edit summary: "not covered yet; self explanatory". What do you mean by "not covered yet" and "self-explanatory"? The existence of glossing abbreviations is introduced in the first footnote in Subject and object, well before the line in question, so the reader knows of these abbreviations. Also, "ques" is the only abbreviation that is expanded in that way; to me, it seems rather inconsistent to have "question" on one hand, but at the same time use the rather cryptic abbreviations "ipfv", "sjv", "attr", and so on. That's why I changed it. Why should we stick to "question"? Sebastian… talk 06:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and there is no entry for "question" in the appendix's list of glossing abbreviations. A reader might be confused and wonder if "question" is in fact the same as "ques", or just some ad-hoc glossing abbreviation. Just my 2 cents. Sebastian… talk 06:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a trade off between being concise and being clear. "sjv" is all over the place, and spelling it out as "subjunctive" every time would be disruptive, but there's hardly any "ques", and having it spelled out once hardly makes any diff at all. So I though it better to spell it out at least until the question marker was introduced. Just following an observation that glossing abbreviations tend to be used for commonly occurring morphemes, not rare ones.


 * "ques" is defined as "question marker", so I doubt there'd be any confusion. —Kwami (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)