Tran/Intrans Sentinces--Am I doing This Right?

Kaltxì, Guest! Why don't you join our community?

Paul Frommer's
Language Workbook

[Tirea Aean]

Ma Tirea, I like the -l and -t terminology, and will remember that when teaching Na'vi!

I did not know that you had to use the agentive form before a verb with the <eyk> infix, even if there is no object. What is the reasoning for this?

Because.

http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php/Canon/2010/UltxaAyharyu%C3%A4#Causative_for_ambitransitive_verbs

[Run'ai]

Wow...lotsa info!

So what I'm gathering from this is that trans/intrans verbs are not set in stone and it really just depends upon the context of the sentence?

[Tirea Aean]

At the end of the day, transitive and intransitive verbs are marked as such in the dictionary. It specifies this in the mobile app too.

[Plumps]

It specifies this in the mobile app too.

That’s right … which reminds me … it would be cool if one could choose all the vtr./vin. instead of only v. in the app
  I should suggest this to Seze

[Run'ai]

That would be great!  I just got the app and I love it!

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Because.

http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php/Canon/2010/UltxaAyharyu%C3%A4#Causative_for_ambitransitive_verbs

irayo! I figured this might be a 'because' because it is kind of odd.

[Yawne Zize’ite]

In my experience, English is very unusual in allowing just about any verb to be either transitive or intransitive. In all the other languages I've studied a verb is transitive or intransitive, and if you want to add or subtract an argument you have to either change verbs or use a causative or reflexive form respectively. The causative adds one argument (intransitive verbs become transitive, transitive verbs become "ambitransitive", bitransitive verbs become...I don't know what happens when you make a bitransitive verb causative) and the reflexive subtracts one (bitransitive verbs become transitive, transitive verbs become intransitive, intransitive verbs look silly). If you need a causative reflexive verb, you end up with the same number of arguments as the base verb.

I die. Oe terkup. (Intransitive)
I make a human die. Oe-l t<eyk>erkup tawtute-t. (Causative and transitive)
I eat (something). Oe yom. (Antipassive)
I eat meat. Oe-l yom tsngan-it. (Transitive)
I make a human eat meat. Oe-l tawtute-ru y<eyk>om tsngan-it. (Causative and ambitransitive)
I eat myself. Oe y<äp>om. (Reflexive and intransitive)
I give a human an arrow. Oe-l tìng tawtute-ru swizaw-it. (Bitransitive)
I give myself an arrow. Oe t<äp>ìng swizaw-it. (Reflexive and transitive)
I make the human give me an arrow. Oe-l t<äp><eyk>ìng tawtute-ru swizaw-it. (Reflexive, causative, and bitransitive)
My guess is that "I make the human give a friend an arrow" is Oe-l tawtute-ru t<eyk>ìng 'eylan-ur swizaw-it but I haven't spotted this structure yet.

It's difficult now, but when you start learning Japanese and see a page-long list of transitive and intransitive verb pairs, you will appreciate having picked up the concept when you learned Na'vi.

[Blue Elf]

I eat myself. Oe y<äp>om. (Reflexive and intransitive)

Correct, if you are "self" cannibal

I give myself an arrow. Oe t<äp>ìng swizaw-it. (Reflexive and transitive)

Not correct, it should be Oel tìng swizawit oeru. <äp> means, that you perform action done by verb on yourself, so oe täpìng means that you give yourself to yourself. And of course there can't any direct object with -it/-ti.

I make the human give me an arrow. Oe-l t<äp><eyk>ìng tawtute-ru swizaw-it. (Reflexive, causative, and bitransitive)
My guess is that "I make the human give a friend an arrow" is Oe-l tawtute-ru t<eyk>ìng 'eylan-ur swizaw-it but I haven't spotted this structure yet.

These two sentences do not appears to be correct. Basically they are the same (they differ only be final recipient of the arrow - you or your friend.). I don't  see reason why to use <äp> in first sentence - you don't perform action on yourself. I'm not sure if such complex sentences can be said in Na'vi without some rephrasing.

[Yawne Zize’ite]

Post corrected. So you can't make a bitransitive (two-object) verb reflexive using the reflexive infix? You can do something like that in Esperanto, but in Esperanto the reflexive infix -iĝ- has a passive nuance and suppresses the agentive (-l) while promoting the patientive (-t) to subject.

[Blue Elf]

Post corrected. So you can't make a bitransitive (two-object) verb reflexive using the reflexive infix? You can do something like that in Esperanto, but in Esperanto the reflexive infix -iĝ- has a passive nuance and suppresses the agentive (-l) while promoting the patientive (-t) to subject.

Reflexive removes direct object on transitive verb, I'm not sure how it works on ditransitives (like tìng, this requires both direct nad indirect objects). It is very interesting question, I'll try to ask more experienced people.
Similarly, not sure what <eyk> causes on ditransitive verb...

[Tanri]

Mostly unexperienced and often speculating, I only can add some thoughts about this.

Personally I dislike the very idea of dative as "indirect object". Isn't this term only a description how this works, as looked at from a point of view of our native languages? Recently I found myself to think about dative case strictly from Na’vi viewpoint - as a "recipient of the action".
So, if I am looking at effects of reflexive and causative on "ditransitive" verbs, they are pretty clear and self explanatory:

Reflexive makes the subject to be the object as well.
Oe ngaru täpìng is "I am giving myself to you" - of course this is not practical in literal sense, seems to me like an idiom, but grammatically correct and clear.

Causative turns the "doing something" thing into "make someone to do something", and the important thing to notice is the fact, that it changes the verb - the core action is changed from "doing..." to "making...". Thus the dative case is the recipient of the action "making", not the one of the action "doing".
So, in Na’vi it is only ONE verb, while in Earth languages we have TWO verbs. This limits our ability to use dative case for both of this verbs, because we need to express TWO recipients - one for original verb and another for "make".
The construction *"Oel poru teykìsyìng tsat ngar." - "I WILL make him to give that to you." is incorrect at this time and surely requires a closer look of Karyu Pawl, because we need to replace one of the datives by something else, or to somehow limit the free word order by bonding <eyk>-corresponding-dative to the "oel".
My unofficial and unapproved approach is to use the topical: *"Ngari oel poru teykìsyìng tsat." - literally "As for you, I WILL make him to give that."