-eyk- + -äp-, is it possible?

Started by Kemaweyan, January 26, 2014, 05:58:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plumps

Quote from: Tanri on February 06, 2014, 04:16:21 PM
Oel poti yeykur - I am causing him to wash.
YES, this is the point. Keep in mind that transitive verbs can be used intransitively as well, in general sense.
The -ti isn't here for mark an object, but for telling us WHO is physically doing that particular action.
So, this example tells only that "Because of me, he washes." Without any clarification, WHAT is being washed.
But form your next sentence this is: oel poru yeykur ('uot) "I cause him to wash (something)" – remember that the direct object remains, only the person who is caused to do something is put into the dative.

See...
Quote from: Tanri on February 06, 2014, 04:16:21 PM
Oel poru yeykur fkxenit - I am causing him to wash vegetable.
Easy and clear again.

Quote from: Tanri on February 06, 2014, 04:16:21 PMOel poti yäpeykur - I am causing him to wash oneself.
This must be the only possible translation, because <äp> means that the doer of the action is doing something on himself, not on anything on anybody else.
I cannot be the doer, because I am only causing something to happen, not directly doing it.
But that doesn't work because ‹äp› is a reflexive that refers back to the subject of the sentence, i.e. oe ;)

Remember also that we have an alternative form of the ‹eyk› sentences by means of fa:
Eytukanìl fa Neytiri yerikit teykolaron
"Eytukan had a yerik hunted by Neytiri." (Horen § 6.11.2.1)

Quote from: Tanri on February 06, 2014, 04:16:21 PM
Oel oeti tspeykang. -  I made myself to kill.
That's what ‹äpeyk› is for ;)
oe tsäpeykang – I cause myself to kill but that doesn't mean that I kill myself (suicide) but that it's a burden to kill in general and that I use will power to bring myself to do that deed.

Can't say much to the next two ... they confuse me and tì'efumì oeyä, don't work ;)

Quote from: Tanri on February 06, 2014, 04:16:21 PMNow, according to my opinion, the second sentence should look this way:
Oel oeti heykangham. - I caused myself to laugh.
There is no use for <äp> in this sentence, because there is no action to be performed on someone or on something.
That would be oe häpeykangham – "I bring myself to laugh"


Tanri

QuoteBut form your next sentence this is: oel poru yeykur ('uot) "I cause him to wash (something)" – remember that the direct object remains, only the person who is caused to do something is put into the dative.
This is different a little. My version was without object - verb was used intransitively, your example has an (unwritten) object.
I have chosen bad example (I forgot that transitives used intransitively are not the same as intransitives, my mistake), better will be:
Po nume - He learns  -->  Oel poti neykume - I am causing him to learn
Original verb has no object, verb with <eyk> has no object as well. Poti is therefore causee, not object. I know that -l and -t pair is used for subject - object, but with verbs originally intransitive this endings stand for causer - causee. I recognize that we say "<eyk> increases transitivity" and technically it is true, but I am still aware of difference between native transitivity and transitivity used for slightly shifted purpose.

When verb is already transitive and we want to add <eyk>, we use dative for causee because there isn't anything like -t2, or another special ending ;)
In this case, -l and -t pair is natively transitive, even when causee is missing:
Eytukanìl yerikit teykolaron - Eytukan let hunt down the yerik (who really hunted it, is unspoken/irrelevant)


QuoteRemember also that we have an alternative form of the ‹eyk› sentences by means of fa:
Eytukanìl fa Neytiri yerikit teykolaron
"Eytukan had a yerik hunted by Neytiri." (Horen § 6.11.2.1)
Yes, fa instead of -r when there already is some object. I understand and agree completely.

Quote from: Plumps on February 06, 2014, 04:47:47 PM
Quote from: Tanri on February 06, 2014, 04:16:21 PM
Oel oeti tspeykang. -  I made myself to kill.
That's what ‹äpeyk› is for ;)
oe tsäpeykang – I cause myself to kill but that doesn't mean that I kill myself (suicide) but that it's a burden to kill in general and that I use will power to bring myself to do that deed.
This combination I maybe never have used, so my comprehension is probably far from perfect. It means that <äpeyk> combination is strictly idiomatic, with this single and only one meaning "cause oneself to do.." ??
In that case, translation of "I made him to wash himself" is not possible, unless some modal verb "to make happen" will be created.
Using new and futa is closest approach, unfortunately not exact:
Oel poru neykew futa po yäpivur. - I made him to want to wash himself.


Sìlpey oe nìtxan tsnì awnga stäpiyevarsìm Ponguplltxemì, fa mokri lawk afì'u lu sìltsan to fwa tsakem si pamrelfa.  ;D
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

How about:

Oel kem seyki futa po yäpur

Or maybe:

Oel kem seyki fì'u fwa po yäpur

Or since we are encountering ditransitivity here:

Oel kem seyki poru fì'u fwa po yäpur

or simply:

Oel kem seyki poru fwa po yäpur

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tìtstewan

Well, somehow my brain is saying that there is something wrong with this <äp> infix regarding to say "one cause to do something oneself"
The <äp> refers only to the subject of a sentence.
As my silly brain is weird enough to think about weird things, I guss there is need a reflexive pronoun.
So, we have actually only a 3rd person reflexive pronoun:

The normal sentence with po:

        Oel yeykur pot
        I cause him to wash.

The reflexive version sno:

        Oel yeykur snot.
        I cause to wash him/herself.

But there is a little problem:

        Oel yeykur ngat
        I cause you to wash.

        Oel yeykur <2nd reflexive pronoun>.
        I cause to wash yourself.

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Plumps

Quote from: Tìtstewan on February 07, 2014, 09:51:52 PM
The normal sentence with po:

        Oel yeykur pot
        I cause him to wash.

That's not how causative works with transitive verbs. Please read Horen § 6.11 again. Your sentence would mean "I cause (somebody unnamed) to wash him". The t ending remains with the direct object of the original direct object of the transitive verb, i.e. oel yur pot "I wash him."

The ones with sno don't work in my opinion because we have the same problem with that we have with ‹äp› – it refers back to the original subject (in this case, specifically 3rd person):

Quote from: Tìtstewan on February 07, 2014, 09:51:52 PM

        Oel yeykur snot.
        I cause to wash him/herself.

The only solution I see here is *oel poru yeykur snot, "I cause him/her to wash him-/herself"  :-\ hmmm, that could actually work as a safe go-around for the time being.
We have a similar structure with the "love him-/herself" as po yawne lu snoru – Pawl said back then that "there is more to say about the sno family, but that will have to wait until another time." Maybe this will be it :D

Quote from: Tìtstewan on February 07, 2014, 09:51:52 PMBut there is a little problem:
I agree with you there. This construct only works for 3rd person singular/plural at the moment until we have a way to refer back to 2nd person pronouns.
Although in the post I mentioned above there is the example of
     Ma muntxatu, oeng yawne lu (oengaru) fìtsap, kefyak?
     "We love each other, don't we, my spouse?"
So, it is possible (or grammatically required) to have two forms of the same pronoun (i.e. oeng) in a sentence. Which would make the following...

Quote from: Tìtstewan on February 07, 2014, 09:51:52 PM
        Oel yeykur ngat
        I cause you to wash.
... possible but with a slight change.
Same as above: "I cause (somebody unnamed) to wash you" ... *oel ngaru yeykur ngati seems to be the only safe way to do this at the moment.

Tìtstewan

Ooops! I totally forgot about the other object (dative) :-X :-[

Quote from: Plumps on February 08, 2014, 05:11:22 AM
Quote from: Tìtstewan on February 07, 2014, 09:51:52 PM

       Oel yeykur snot.
       I cause to wash him/herself.
The only solution I see here is *oel poru yeykur snot, "I cause him/her to wash him-/herself"  :-\ hmmm, that could actually work as a safe go-around for the time being.
We have a similar structure with the "love him-/herself" as po yawne lu snoru – Pawl said back then that "there is more to say about the sno family, but that will have to wait until another time." Maybe this will be it :D
This is what I want to say! :D

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

So, the use of <eyk> on a transitive verb absolutely makes it ditransitive (requires a direct and indirect object0?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Kemaweyan

No. Oel teykolaron poru also is possible.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä


Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Kemaweyan

Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

#30
Them was maybe an english-ism on my part, as this is third person. But what is confusing here is the dative case on the object. Wouldn't a simple pot be sufficient, as [p]po[/b] is the target of your causation to hunt, like any other simple  transitive sentence? The -ru here does little to reinforce the meaning and much to confuse it.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Plumps

No, because

oel teykaron pot would mean I cause (somebody unnamed) to hunt him/her.

Oel poru teykaron is a general statement I cause him to hunt (in general).

Compare these, to make the transition clear:

Oel taron yerikit, I hunt hexapede.

Ngal taron yerikit, you hunt hexapede.

Oel ngaru teykaron yerikit, I make you hunt hexapede/I cause you to hunt hexepede.
(cf., Ngal oeru teykaron yerikit. You cause me to hunt hexapede.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Plumps on February 10, 2014, 03:30:43 AM
No, because

oel teykaron pot would mean I cause (somebody unnamed) to hunt him/her.

Oel poru teykaron is a general statement I cause him to hunt (in general).

Compare these, to make the transition clear:

Oel taron yerikit, I hunt hexapede.

Ngal taron yerikit, you hunt hexapede.

Oel ngaru teykaron yerikit, I make you hunt hexapede/I cause you to hunt hexepede.
(cf., Ngal oeru teykaron yerikit. You cause me to hunt hexapede.


So really, this is the 'obligatory ditransitiveness' I mentioned, with the direct object dropped. Since the direct object in your example is not a pronoun, it really cannot be dropped. So Oel teykaron poru is really not correct, but Oel poru teykaron talioangit is correct, and makes perfect sense.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tìtstewan

Oel teykaron poru is possible because it means I make him/her to hunt <something>, without to specify what. You could put there a yerik, palulukan, tawtute etc. as direct object.

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Plumps

Exactly, that was something that was established in the October Meet-up of 2010.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

This is an example where word order seems to make a difference. The example in the writeup from the October 2010 meetup was Oel poru teykaron - 'I to you cause to hunt'. That's pretty straightforward. Knowing that is canon, and there is no rule that says Oel teykaron poru - 'I cause to hunt to you' is wrong, than that form is canon, even though on the surface it looks wrong.

I can see now how the ditransitive nature of this sentence works. Fully ditransitive sentences in Na'vi have been fairly uncommon, to begin with, and 'object drop' (or more correctly 'patient drop') makes their meaning unclear. But based on what came out of the ultxa, Oel taron poti and Oel teykaron poti have nearly the same agent-patient flow, even though one is causitive.

I guess the bottom line here is, for best conveyance of meaning, don't drop the object/patient -- Oel teykaron poru yerikit.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tìtstewan

#36
No,
Oel poru teykaron
Oel teykaron poru
Teykaron poru oel

All three examples mean "I make him/her to hunt". There are case endings that is marking the role of these nouns. Don't confuse it with the English word order. :o

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Tìtstewan on February 11, 2014, 03:09:02 PM
No,
Oel poru teykaron
Oel teykaron poru
Teykaron poru oel

All three examples mean "I make you to hunt". There are case endings that is marking the role of these nouns. Don't confuse it with the English word order. :o

Very true, but in this case, its a vague case ending that is causing the confusion ::)

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Plumps

Why vague?

The endings are there to make the difference ;)

The challenge is of course to pick these up in a conversation (something I'm not sure, I could do with surety) but how often do we assume something out of context although we didn't understand every word?—at least, that's my experience with learning/studying English. So much is done via assuming, we finish the sentence in our head what the other might say because we know the sentence structure and semantics of a language. The difficulty in Na'vi of course is its flexibility and that we don't know how the other person will construct a sentence ;)

In this case, though, it's clear: the direct object remains, the dative takes the position of the person that is being caused to do something.