Frommerian Email

Started by Taronyu, January 25, 2010, 12:27:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Taronyu

I asked Frommer some questions. And he responded. Here they are:

§ § § § § § § § § §

Kaltxì nìmun, ma Taronyu.

See below for some answers.

Quote from: TaronyuIn your Language Log, you show in the trapezium that [a] is the low back vowel, in contrast to [æ]. Did you mean to say [ɑ]? I am aware that you use an old American system.

I meant [a], a low central vowel; essentially the corresponding vowel in Spanish and Italian, or in the standard American pronunciation of 'hot.' So you're right: phonetically it's not really back.

Quote from: TaronyuIs transitivity lexically marked: you've shown that 'promise' is ditransitive in the guide, but what about the other words? Will you be showing us how to do this soon?

Well, I've been pretty much leaving it up to the semantics to determine what's transitive and what's not, when it's clear. "Sleep" is clearly intransitive, for example; "kill" is clearly transitive. So I don't need to annotate those in the lexicon. For verbs like 'begin,' however, you have to be told which one you're talking about. So for those, I've indicated the type in the complete glossary. Until that's published, let me know what's not obvious and I'll get back to you.

Quote from: TaronyuI've noticed in a shot of a script that you stress monosyllabic words when they have an inflection (and therefore are polysyllabic), but not otherwise. Should all monosyllabic words be stressed normally?

Yes indeed. I underlined the stressed syllables in polysyllabic words for the actors, so they could pronounce their lines correctly. I've done that in the glossary too for all polysyllabic words.

The rule for inflected verbs is that whatever vowel is stressed in the root keeps its stress in the inflected form. So for example, the root for hunt, as you know, is taron, stress on the first syllable. So all the inflected forms retain stress on the original a of the root: tivaron, tolaron, tayarängon, etc. Cf. pängkxo "chat, converse," where the stress on the ultima. The stress stays there in the inflected forms: pivängkxo, polängkxo, payängkxängo.

Quote from: TaronyuIf a verb is understood to be transitive (depending on your answer above), when the direct object is replaced by a verb phrase, is the subject still marked as ergative? Essentially, which is more correct: Oe new pivlltxe or Oel new pivlltxe?

Good question.

First note that for "can" and "must," the subject is considered intransitive:

Oe tsun kivä. 'I can go.' (NOT *Oel tsun kivä.)
Oe zene kivä. 'I must go.' (NOT *Oel zene kivä.)

"Want" MAY follow the same pattern:

Oe new kivä. (That is, it patterns like a modal.)

But since want, unlike can and must, is a transitive verb, there's an alternate pattern:

Oel new futa (= fì'ut a) kivä.

And you also have sentences like:

Oel new futa Taronyu kivä. "I want Taronyu to go."

So in the sentences you asked about, Oe new pivlltxe is fine. In one with oel, though, insert futa.

Quote from: TaronyuIs sänume indicative of a - nomilinalizer to show the instrument of the verb?

The - prefix is a bit of a loose end. So far I only have one example of it in the lexicon: nume "learn" vs. sänume "teaching, instruction." You're right: I was thinking of it as something like an instrumental affix: instruction is the thing BY MEANS OF WHICH you learn. On that basis, since mun'i is the verb "cut," sämun'i could be a word for a general cutting instrument. I'll need to think more about that, however, since I'm not sure these two cases are comparable. In the second case, you have a concrete instrument, which must be present in order to implement the verb. With nume, though, you can learn by other means than teaching: from experience, from trial and error, etc. So should sänume refer to any means whatsoever of learning something? I'm not sure yet. Thanks for the question!


No problem if you share any of this.

BTW, let's take a look at your sentence again:

(1) Oel new pivlltxe nìNa'vi mì oeyä letrra tìrey, (2) slä oel tsun pivey (3) trrit a ngat taying (oe new tìying!) ayoe nì'ul aylì'u!

(1) and (2) are virtually perfect: just change oel to oe in both cases. I like letrr for daily! I'll add that to the glossary, with RL in the Source column. :-)

(3), though, needs a little help. Are you awaiting "the day that you will give us more words?" If so, the verb for "give" is tìng, so it should be:

trrit a nga tayìng (or, hopefully, tìyìng) ayoer(u) aylì'ut nì'ul.

But if I've misinterpreted you, please let me know.

Hope that helps!

P.S. You know who's awesome? Frommer is awesome. -Taronyu.

Eight

poan nawma tutean livu lam

Thanks for sharing mate.

Txaslan

#2
I just LOVE this guy. He's so kind and it's plain that he likes getting in touch with us.  :)

Most people involved in such a big project would ignore fan e-mails or send a standardized answer, but he actually answered to each and every point of your e-mail.

He's a god.

Skxawng

excellent. I'm really happy sä got cleared up.


"prrkxentrrkrr is a skill best saved for only the most cunning linguist"

Lance R. Casey

Great to get something like this nìyey ta meseyri pa'liyä as Roger so cleverly put it! :)

A couple of things stand out to me:

Regarding the issue of transitivity, there's another clue sitting right there in the example phrase. Pey wait is used intransitively in the letter (nìaynga oe perey nìteng like you, I too am waiting), but here it is "made" transitive simply by adding an accusative (oe tsun pivey trrit I can await the day). This is neither a huge revelation nor a surprising one, but it serves to remind us not to be too English-centric, where we sometimes need to modify the verb in some way to get the transitive meaning.

Regarding the recent discussion about nì-modified words I instigated, that same phrase is of some interest. Just by looking at it and comparing with the translation, it might be tempting to posit an adjectival relationship in nì'ul aylì'u (as more words), but the lack of an attributive marker is telling. Again the English may be more ambiguous than it seems at first glance, so that a more literal rendering would be "you will give us words to a greater degree". Thoughts?

// Lance R. Casey

Taronyu

Oh yeah! Also:

§ § § § § § § § § § § §

At the end of my previous e-mail:

Let's make that--


trrit a NGAL tayìng (or, hopefully, tìyìng) ayoer(u) aylì'ut nì'ul.


Kxeyeyri tsap'alute sengi oe. [kxeyey = mistake, error]


Frommer. (What a dude. - T)


Doolio

so, if there's no direct object in accusative, subject should stay in nominative?

oe kame - i 'see'
oel ngati kame - i 'see' you
...taj rad...

Keylstxatsmen

#8
Quote from: Taronyu on January 25, 2010, 01:44:25 PM
Kxeyeyri tsap'alute sengi oe. [kxeyey = mistake, error]


So <eng> is the evidential?!?!?

I forget, the only other place we've seen this is in to apologize...

-Keyl
Oeru lì'fya leNa'vi prrte' leiu nìtxan! 

Txo nga new leskxawnga tawtutehu nìNa'vi pivängkxo, oeru 'upxaret fpe' ulte ngaru srungit tayìng oel.  Faylì'ut alor nume 'awsiteng ko!

Erimeyz

Quote from: Taronyu on January 25, 2010, 12:27:49 PM
Quote
I like letrr for daily! I'll add that to the glossary, with RL in the Source column. :-)
P.S. You know who's awesome? Frommer is awesome. -Taronyu.

You just inherited a little bit of awesomeness.

  - Eri

Erimeyz

Quote from: Taronyu on January 25, 2010, 12:27:49 PM
Quote
The rule for inflected verbs is that whatever vowel is stressed in the root keeps its stress in the inflected form. So for example, the root for hunt, as you know, is taron, stress on the first syllable. So all the inflected forms retain stress on the original a of the root: tivaron, tolaron, tayarängon, etc. Cf. pängkxo "chat, converse," where the stress on the ultima. The stress stays there in the inflected forms: pivängkxo, polängkxo, payängkxängo.

Did Frommer's email indicate stresses in this paragraph?

  - Eri

Taronyu

Quote from: Erimeyz on January 25, 2010, 01:57:33 PM
Quote from: Taronyu on January 25, 2010, 12:27:49 PM
Quote
The rule for inflected verbs is that whatever vowel is stressed in the root keeps its stress in the inflected form. So for example, the root for hunt, as you know, is taron, stress on the first syllable. So all the inflected forms retain stress on the original a of the root: tivaron, tolaron, tayarängon, etc. Cf. pängkxo "chat, converse," where the stress on the ultima. The stress stays there in the inflected forms: pivängkxo, polängkxo, payängkxängo.

Did Frommer's email indicate stresses in this paragraph?

  - Eri


Unfortunately, no. I think the formatting he used messed up, there were a lot of unicode boxes in my email for apostrophes.


Tsway'eion


Erimeyz

Quote from: Doolio on January 25, 2010, 01:52:23 PM
so, if there's no direct object in accusative, subject should stay in nominative?

oe kame - i 'see'
oel ngati kame - i 'see' you

We don't know that yet.  We only know about can, must, and want, and those are special (they're "modal verbs").  Of the three, two are always intransitive when used in the construction "can/must (some verb)" and thus the subjects stay in the subjective case (no case marker).  Want can use the same construction and thus be intransitive, or it can use a different construction and be transitive - "want (some verb)" vs. "want that (some verb)", both of which mean the same thing.  Use the subjective with the first, ergative with the second.

This has no direct applicability to kame or any other verb.  We still don't know how transitivity works for verbs that might be either transitive or intransitive, like "begin" (and maybe "See").

  - Eri

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: Erimeyz on January 25, 2010, 03:09:23 PM
Quote from: Doolio on January 25, 2010, 01:52:23 PM
so, if there's no direct object in accusative, subject should stay in nominative?

oe kame - i 'see'
oel ngati kame - i 'see' you

We don't know that yet.  We only know about can, must, and want, and those are special (they're "modal verbs").  Of the three, two are always intransitive when used in the construction "can/must (some verb)" and thus the subjects stay in the subjective case (no case marker).  Want can use the same construction and thus be intransitive, or it can use a different construction and be transitive - "want (some verb)" vs. "want that (some verb)", both of which mean the same thing.  Use the subjective with the first, ergative with the second.

This has no direct applicability to kame or any other verb.  We still don't know how transitivity works for verbs that might be either transitive or intransitive, like "begin" (and maybe "See").

  - Eri


See Taronyu's second question, Frommer makes it clear that for some verbs it is lexically bound and others syntactically. As to see makes sense generally, it's transitivity (and therefore whether it needs -l) is syntactically bound.

Therefore oe kame (I see) is correct.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

Erimeyz

Quote from: tìkawngä mungeyu on January 25, 2010, 03:32:13 PM
Quote from: Erimeyz on January 25, 2010, 03:09:23 PM
Quote from: Doolio on January 25, 2010, 01:52:23 PM
so, if there's no direct object in accusative, subject should stay in nominative?

oe kame - i 'see'
oel ngati kame - i 'see' you

We don't know that yet.  We only know about can, must, and want, and those are special (they're "modal verbs").  Of the three, two are always intransitive when used in the construction "can/must (some verb)" and thus the subjects stay in the subjective case (no case marker).  Want can use the same construction and thus be intransitive, or it can use a different construction and be transitive - "want (some verb)" vs. "want that (some verb)", both of which mean the same thing.  Use the subjective with the first, ergative with the second.

This has no direct applicability to kame or any other verb.  We still don't know how transitivity works for verbs that might be either transitive or intransitive, like "begin" (and maybe "See").

  - Eri
See Taronyu's second question, Frommer makes it clear that for some verbs it is lexically bound and others syntactically.

You know, I've read all the discussion about transitivity, and I still have no idea what people mean when they say "syntactically bound transitivity".  If I understand correctly, "lexically bound transitivity" means that some words are defined in the lexicon as being transitive or intransitive.  Syntactically here means... what?

In the bit quoted above, Frommer says that some words do not need to be marked for transitivity in the lexicon because their semantics (i.e. what they mean) clearly show that they are transitive or intransitive.  That doesn't mean they aren't lexically transitive or lexically intransitive, it means that their transitivity is obvious from their meaning and so he hasn't bothered to annotate them.  The lexicon defines the meaning, though, so it's still the lexicon that is determining whether they are Vtr or Vin.

As for words whose transitivity is not clear from their meaning, Frommer says he's annotated them in the lexicon (he just hasn't told us what they are yet).  So those words will also have lexically bound transitivity.

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what folks here mean by "lexical".

Quote from: tìkawngä mungeyu on January 25, 2010, 03:32:13 PM
As to see makes sense generally, it's transitivity (and therefore whether it needs -l) is syntactically bound.  Therefore oe kame (I see) is correct.

You're making an assumption here that's not (yet) supported by the canon.  Unless you can point me to an attestation of oe kame... ?

Maybe it's correct.  Maybe it's not.  We don't know.  We're hoping to find out soon.

  - Eri

wm.annis

Quote from: Erimeyz on January 25, 2010, 03:56:53 PMUnless I'm completely misunderstanding what folks here mean by "lexical".

I'm afraid so.  You defined it above, then said it wasn't the same as lexical transitivity.  :)

When I say "lexical transitivity," at least, I mean is the transitivity determined by the verb alone.  Clause-level or semantic transitivity means you can't assign transitivity until a verb gets used — you need the rest of the sentence to be sure.  English, of course, has rather a lot of the latter ("move," for example).

Erimeyz

Quote from: wm.annis on January 25, 2010, 04:05:21 PM
Quote from: Erimeyz on January 25, 2010, 03:56:53 PMUnless I'm completely misunderstanding what folks here mean by "lexical".

I'm afraid so.  You defined it above, then said it wasn't the same as lexical transitivity.  :)

I don't see where I did that.  Can you show me?

Quote from: wm.annis on January 25, 2010, 04:05:21 PM
When I say "lexical transitivity," at least, I mean is the transitivity determined by the verb alone.  Clause-level or semantic transitivity means you can't assign transitivity until a verb gets used — you need the rest of the sentence to be sure.

Yep, that's what I thought.  And what I meant to say, however poorly.  Still not clear on "syntactical" transitivity (lexical I get, semantic I get... syntactical?)

  - Eri

kewnya txamew'itan

A syntactically transitive verb is one that has taken a direct object in a specific sentence.

This is in contrast to lexically transitive verb that is always transitive no matter what the sentence.



Frommer said that only some verbs were lexically transitive (implying that the default position is syntactically transitive) and so kame is likely to be syntactic with oe kame being correct.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's