Implicatures in Na'vi

--- by JLS
------ for the GC

---- I AM ASHAMED TO ADMIT I HAVEN'T YET seen Avatar ('why?' -- meaning, why are you ashamed, rather than why haven't I seen it -- detecting some mock apologetic tone which is usually of the hateful type) but found this in today's World Wide Words thing ed. by M. Quinion:

"NUME NA'VI If you have long envied students of Klingon, you can
now startle them with your knowledge of Na'vi, the language of the
big blue aliens in Avatar: http://www.learnnavi.org/."

And I have NOT checked that either, but hey.

I wonder:

--- vocabulary of Na'vi: does it range over ALL types of predicabilia as in English, or is it narrower than English in scope? Or broader? Who was the linguistic adviser in film? (I recall a French film called "Fire!" had Anthony Burgess as advisor and was based on the idea of prehistoric man's language.

--- syntax, semantics, I don't care much, but...

--- pragmatics, yes. Are there implicatures in Na'vi? Of what type? Do they follow the co-operative principle (As Kramer said, "South Park" on earth features the tricky expression, 'on earth', as ambiguous -- seeing that South Park is an anime. In the case of Na'vi, it's not even there. I assume they DO follow the cooperative principle and even the four conversational categories: to wit: qualitas, quantitas, relatio and modus. Why, they possibly had a Stagirite among them.

If you can provide your favourite Na'vi implicature do. Recall that in Na'vi, the implicatures are in English. I.e. what follows the 'implicature' sign, +>, is NOT an utterance, but a proposition in 'so-mis-called' Mentalese (in the Na'vi thing). So, I wonder if 'some', in Na'vi, has the implicature, 'not all'. Etc.

--- When Argentine J. Campanella received the Oscar for best-foreign film this last edition of the Oscars, he remarked, with an accent, "I'm glad "Avatar" wasn't nominated for best foreign-language film, for I wouldn't be in this podium elsewise".