Numeral + noun = x-noun-ed <- Work that?

[Tìtstewan]

Kaltxì ayngaru!

Well, while I was translating a text, I've read a text which includes following words:
four-winged dragonfly

Thought about, how I would translate that word(s) four-winged?
So, that word is a noun (wing) which tramsformed was transformed into an adjective by a numeral (four).

Big question is, is this way also in Na'vi possible?
tsyal - wing
tsìng - four

That should be like this:
*tsìng-tsyal-a hì'ang
  four-winged dragonfly

Thoughts?
Is a compound of a numeral and a noun possible?
(Without using a complex construction like "hì'angur lu tsyal atsìng".)

[Tirea Aean]

Kaltxì ayngaru!

Well, while I was translating a text, I've read a text which includes following words:
four-winged dragonfly

Thought about, how I would translate that word(s) four-winged?
So, that word is a noun (wing) which tramsformed was transformed into an adjective by a numeral (four).

Big question is, is this way also in Na'vi possible?
tsyal - wing
tsìng - four

That should be like this:
*tsìng-tsyal-a hì'ang
  four-winged dragonfly

Thoughts?
Is a compound of a numeral and a noun possible?
(Without using a complex construction like "hì'angur lu tsyal atsìng".)

This is a great question! And there is currently no official answer. I think you've come up with a sensible, likely solution. Officially speaking though, we can't do that yet; we have to do it the wordy way until we know how to say this.

Some of us have been wondering about just this for a long time now, I think. I remember way back in the day we had a member called nìtsìng lekinama yayo (I think the name was). I think your way is more likely to be correct.

[Plumps]

The wordy way would be

hì'ang a poru lu tsìnga tsyal

which really poses no problem unless you want to describe the insect further by attributive adjectives.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Or, how about tsìnga tsayl a hì·ang? Since numbers are adjectives, you describe the wings first, then the animal.

[Blue Elf]

Or, how about tsìnga tsayl a hì·ang? Since numbers are adjectives, you describe the wings first, then the animal.

No, this doesn't work. I've seen some rule in our Czech grammar regarding this, I'll try to find it when I'll be at home
As it is written it translates as "insect which four wings". It gives no sense.

[Tìtstewan]

Or, how about tsìnga tsayl a hì·ang? Since numbers are adjectives, you describe the wings first, then the animal. No, this doesn't work. I've seen some rule in our Czech grammar regarding this, I'll try to find it when I'll be at home As it is written it translates as "insect which four wings". It gives no sense.

There is missing a verb...

[Lance R. Casey]

Frommer actually discussed this issue way back (Feb 18) -- but with half the number of wings.

[Tìtstewan]

Spoiler: Feb 18

Feb 18

Sìpawm ngeyä ke lu ftue [...]! Slä lu sìltsan.

OK, let's see . . .

1. mesyalä ikran

Strikes me as a little odd, but I guess it's OK. "An ikran of two wings." Parallel to "a man of few words." Genitives are used for many purposes.

2. mesyalhu a ikran

I like that the best. Seems quite natural.

3. *mesyal a ikran

Right. That should be ruled out.

4. ?mesyal lu a ikran

This is the most interesting one. I don't think it should be considered acceptable, but it touches on wider issues.

Assuming the RC starts out this way:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran

[Digression: I've been preferring lu-initial order for "have" constructions: Lu ikranur mesyal. But that's not a hard-and-fast rule, so I'll keep the above order, which better reflects your example.}

The question, of course, is what do you do with the coref. NP in the RC--delete or pronominalize?

As I'm sure you know, languages have different hierarchies with respect to what happens to coref. NPs. Subjects are the most deletable, followed by DOs, followed by obliques, followed by comparatives . . . (It's been a long time since I looked carefully at this stuff, but I think that's correct.) So, for example, in English you can say "He's the man I spoke to" but in many other languages you have to say "He's the man that I spoke to him."

In the Na'vi case, coref. NP deletion only extends as far as DOs. So for datives, you need to pronominalize:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran > poru mesyal lu a ikran

Other word orders work too, of course: lu poru mesyal a ikran (I like that one the best), mesyal lu poru a ikran, etc.

So, it is this:
Lu poru tsìnga tsyal a hì'ang.

[Tirea Aean]

Spoiler: Feb 18

Feb 18

Sìpawm ngeyä ke lu ftue [...]! Slä lu sìltsan.

OK, let's see . . .

1. mesyalä ikran

Strikes me as a little odd, but I guess it's OK. "An ikran of two wings." Parallel to "a man of few words." Genitives are used for many purposes.

2. mesyalhu a ikran

I like that the best. Seems quite natural.

3. *mesyal a ikran

Right. That should be ruled out.

4. ?mesyal lu a ikran

This is the most interesting one. I don't think it should be considered acceptable, but it touches on wider issues.

Assuming the RC starts out this way:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran

[Digression: I've been preferring lu-initial order for "have" constructions: Lu ikranur mesyal. But that's not a hard-and-fast rule, so I'll keep the above order, which better reflects your example.}

The question, of course, is what do you do with the coref. NP in the RC--delete or pronominalize?

As I'm sure you know, languages have different hierarchies with respect to what happens to coref. NPs. Subjects are the most deletable, followed by DOs, followed by obliques, followed by comparatives . . . (It's been a long time since I looked carefully at this stuff, but I think that's correct.) So, for example, in English you can say "He's the man I spoke to" but in many other languages you have to say "He's the man that I spoke to him."

In the Na'vi case, coref. NP deletion only extends as far as DOs. So for datives, you need to pronominalize:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran > poru mesyal lu a ikran

Other word orders work too, of course: lu poru mesyal a ikran (I like that one the best), mesyal lu poru a ikran, etc.

So, it is this:
Lu poru tsìnga tsyal a hì'ang.

EDIT: Yes. OR--

2. mesyalhu a ikran

I like that the best. Seems quite natural.

I'd say then, tsìnga tsyalhu a hì'ang

[Blue Elf]

Frommer actually discussed this issue way back (Feb 18) -- but with half the number of wings.

That's what I was searching for. Thanks.

mesyalhu a ikran

To me it sounds strange - ikran accompanied by wings - wings are disconnected from ikran
But as it was said by Paul.... it must be correct. Tam

[Tirea Aean]

Idk about Czech, but it makes sense in English to say "the bird with two wings" I think it also makes sense in Deutsch to say "Der Vogel mit zwei Flügeln"

[Tìtstewan]

I'm dropping by from a random PC, while I'm riding this...

Idk about Czech, but it makes sense in English to say "the bird with two wings" I think it also makes sense in Deutsch to say "Der Vogel mit zwei Flügeln"

Yes, both makes sense, but I think first, this is a too Germanic way, and second, it seem to make no sense in Na'vi, because as far as I know, hu mean in "accompaniment with someone", and this is the strange thing for me.

[Tirea Aean]

Paul said he liked it and thought it seemed natural. (But of course he'd say that, as a native speaker of English)

He also like the wordy version. I'd say use that one, unless you needed it to be very short.

[Kemaweyan]

Idk about Czech, but it makes sense in English to say "the bird with two wings" I think it also makes sense in Deutsch to say "Der Vogel mit zwei Flügeln"

Also it makes sense in Russian and Ukrainian. For me it would be the most obvious way

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I think there is something here of seminal importance, that might explain a lot of the oddities in the Na'vi language.

First of all:

K. Pawl writes:

3. *mesyal a ikran

Right. That should be ruled out.

This is very close to my tsìnga tsayl a hì·ang Pawl does not like it. But he likes a construction like:

K.Pawl writes:

2. mesyalhu a ikran

I like that the best. Seems quite natural.

This construction is slightly wordier than I had, and it really is more understandable. But Pawl likes even better:

K. Pawl writes:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran > poru mesyal lu a ikran

Other word orders work too, of course: lu poru mesyal a ikran (I like that one the best), mesyal lu poru a ikran, etc.

Pawl gives the reason he likes this as:

The question, of course, is what do you do with the coref. NP in the RC--delete or pronominalize?

As I'm sure you know, languages have different hierarchies with respect to what happens to coref. NPs. Subjects are the most deletable, followed by DOs, followed by obliques, followed by comparatives . . . (It's been a long time since I looked carefully at this stuff, but I think that's correct.) So, for example, in English you can say "He's the man I spoke to" but in many other languages you have to say "He's the man that I spoke to him."

In the Na'vi case, coref. NP deletion only extends as far as DOs. So for datives, you need to pronominalize:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran > poru mesyal lu a ikran

Other word orders work too, of course: lu poru mesyal a ikran (I like that one the best), mesyal lu poru a ikran, etc.

Pawl uses a lot of abbreviations and acronyms here, so what he is saying is is really hard to understand. What exactly is he saying. What kind of general principles can we draw from this post?

[Tirea Aean]

*annoyed by inability to use Quote Button for Quick Reply... Stares angrily at CloudFlare*

I think there is something here of seminal importance, that might explain a lot of the oddities in the Na'vi language.

Spoiler: snip

First of all:

K. Pawl writes:

3. *mesyal a ikran

Right. That should be ruled out.

This is very close to my tsìnga tsayl a hì·ang Pawl does not like it. But he likes a construction like:

K.Pawl writes:

2. mesyalhu a ikran

I like that the best. Seems quite natural.

This construction is slightly wordier than I had, and it really is more understandable. But Pawl likes even better:

K. Pawl writes:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran > poru mesyal lu a ikran

Other word orders work too, of course: lu poru mesyal a ikran (I like that one the best), mesyal lu poru a ikran, etc.

I don't see where he said he likes that one better than the tsyalhu one. I think he liked both of them the best. So I'd say they are both usable. And the tsyalhu one is much shorter.

Pawl gives the reason he likes this as:

The question, of course, is what do you do with the coref. NP in the RC--delete or pronominalize?

As I'm sure you know, languages have different hierarchies with respect to what happens to coref. NPs. Subjects are the most deletable, followed by DOs, followed by obliques, followed by comparatives . . . (It's been a long time since I looked carefully at this stuff, but I think that's correct.) So, for example, in English you can say "He's the man I spoke to" but in many other languages you have to say "He's the man that I spoke to him."

In the Na'vi case, coref. NP deletion only extends as far as DOs. So for datives, you need to pronominalize:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran > poru mesyal lu a ikran

Other word orders work too, of course: lu poru mesyal a ikran (I like that one the best), mesyal lu poru a ikran, etc.

Pawl uses a lot of abbreviations and acronyms here, so what he is saying is is really hard to understand. What exactly is he saying. What kind of general principles can we draw from this post?

Yeah, there are a lot of abbreviations for very in-depth linguistic things. But For people over whose heads that goes (most people), The translation of this is:

The question, of course, is what do you do with the [co-referencing Noun Phrase in the Relative Clause] --delete or pronominalize?

As I'm sure you know, languages have different hierarchies with respect to what happens to [co-referencing Noun Phrases]. Subjects are the most deletable, followed by [Direct Objects], followed by obliques, followed by comparatives . . . (It's been a long time since I looked carefully at this stuff, but I think that's correct.) So, for example, in English you can say "He's the man I spoke to" but in many other languages you have to say "He's the man that I spoke to him."

In the Na'vi case, [co-referencing. Noun Phrase] deletion only extends as far as [Direct Objects]. So for datives, you need to pronominalize:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran > poru mesyal lu a ikran

Other word orders work too, of course: lu poru mesyal a ikran (I like that one the best), mesyal lu poru a ikran, etc.

Take home points:

In Na'vi, you can do this:

1 The guy who I saw yesterday. ((It doesn't have to be: The guy who I saw him yesterday.))
2 The guy who saw me yesterday. ((It doesn't have to be: The guy who he saw me yesterday.))

But you cannot do this:

*3 The guy I gave the gift to. ((it has to be: The guy who to him I gave the gift.))

Na'vi examples:

1. Tutan a oel tse'a trram. ((doesn't have to be: Tutan a oel tse'a poti trram))
2. Tutan a oeti tse'a trram. ((doesn't have to be: Tutan a pol oeti tse'a trram))

But you can't do this:

*3 Tutan a oel tìng stxelit ((it has to be: Tutan a poru oel tìng stxelit))

<edits.>

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

So is the difference between these examples the fact that there is a subordinate clause containing a verb that requires both a subject and an object to have the desired meaning? Both tse'a and tìng are transitive verbs, so it is more than the verb just being transitive.

[Tirea Aean]

So is the difference between these examples the fact that there is a subordinate clause containing a verb that requires both a subject and an object to have the desired meaning? Both tse'a and tìng are transitive verbs, so it is more than the verb just being transitive.

well, if you have an intransitive verb in that clause, then of course you will not even have a direct object to delete. But you do have a subject to delete. And the dative still never gets deleted.

Intransitive examples:

a) The guy who sleeps. ((You don't need to say The guy who, he sleeps))

b) The guy who helps me. ((You have to say The guy who to me does assistance))

a) Tutan a hahaw ((don't have to say: Tutan a po hahaw))

b) Tutan a oeru srung si ((cannot leave out oeru, unless that part is not important and you deliberately don't want to mention to whom the help is done))

EDIT: and of course, the example relevant to OP still stands thusly:

Hì'ang a poru lu tsyal atsìng ((and Not: *Hì'ang a lu tsyal atsìng))

Or, of course the shorter, different structure:

Hì'ang a tsyalhu atsìng

[Blue Elf]

Idk about Czech, but it makes sense in English to say "the bird with two wings" I think it also makes sense in Deutsch to say "Der Vogel mit zwei Flügeln"

In Czech it works perfectly, I wasn't comfortable with Na'vi version, as:

because as far as I know, hu means "accompaniment with someone"

That is why I said it looks like wings are separated from ikran

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Idk about Czech, but it makes sense in English to say "the bird with two wings" I think it also makes sense in Deutsch to say "Der Vogel mit zwei Flügeln"

In Czech it works perfectly, I wasn't comfortable with Na'vi version, as:

because as far as I know, hu means "accompaniment with someone"

That is why I said it looks like wings are separated from ikran

First of all, I see attempts here to make a complete sentence out of a simple descriptive term 'four winged insect'. I do see any reason why a verb is necessary in this phrase, as no action is involved.

Second, we have two adpositions that roughly translate into English as 'with': fa- and hu- The first is intended to be used to describe an effector, such as Oe tswayon ne  keutral fa ikran. The second is used to describe a situation where something is accompanired by something else. Nowhere does it say that has to be people only, nor is the form of the accompaniement indicated. This is further emphasized in the dictionary by having the word 'accompaniment' in parenthesis. So in this case, it indicates that the insect is accompanied by four wings. Taken in the context of the phrase, at least in English, it describes a feature of the insect. Soch feature (four wings in this case) 'accompanies' the insect. So, I don't see where the concept of separation is coming from.