prefer X to Y

[Plumps]

We have nulnew as "prefer" and have a few example sentences in which it is used as a modal.

How would we say something like:

"I prefer water to alcohol."

[archaic]

Not going to say it. Not, going, to, say, it. Not ..... going .... to ..... say ..... it!

Damn.

[Tìtstewan]

"I prefer water to alcohol."

Oel nulnew nì'ul payt swoatto.
I prefer more water than alcohol.

^Maybe that one?

[Taronyu Leleioae]

Oel nulnew nì'ul payt swoato.

(Nulnew is transitive...)


Perhaps considering a different word order?
For comparisons, we idiomatically write:
Quarritch to Jake lu tsawl. (= Quarritch Jaketo lu tsawl.)

If we use this pattern, how about:  
Payt swoato nulnew oel.

[Tìtstewan]

Oel nulnew nì'ul payt swoato. (Nulnew is transitive...) Perhaps considering a different word order? For comparisons, we idiomatically write: Quarritch to Jake lu tsawl. (= Quarritch Jaketo lu tsawl.) If we use this pattern, how about:   Payt swoato nulnew oel.

First, fixed. Forgot about that.
Second, Na'vi have a free word order.

[Taronyu Leleioae]

Secound, Na'vi have a free word order.

No, not completely.  Better to think of it as "semi" flexible word order.  Idioms may call for certain word order sequences.
This stated, yours is a variation of flexible word order, and this may be fine here.

For continuing discussion, in Horen on p31, you have the example (although not from Pawl) of a sentence where it says, "Oe ngato lu koak."  However this is using the idiomatic "lu" construction.

My input was more about whether this comparison using "nulnew", could or should be along the same pattern?  You want a word order that makes the meaning clear.  Thus having the preferred (whatever) first, gives more emphasis and focus on it, as well as comparing it to the (alternative thing) which would come second.  Again, I'm just asking if this is something of an idiomatic sentence construction?

[Tìtstewan]

If we use this pattern, how about:   Payt swoato nulnew oel.

Hmm, I'm not sure, but somehow I think to need an adjective...(and I beleave, I also failed with my construction)

Secound, Na'vi have a free word order. No, not completely.  Better to think of it as "semi" flexible word order.  Idioms may call for certain word order sequences. This stated, yours is a variation of flexible word order, and this may be fine here. For continuing discussion, in Horen on p31, you have the example (although not from Pawl) of a sentence where it says, "Oe ngato lu koak."  However this is using the idiomatic "lu" construction.

The question is, do we need an idiomatic construction for that?

My input was more about whether this comparison using "nulnew", could or should be along the same pattern?  You want a word order that makes the meaning clear.  Thus having the preferred (whatever) first, gives more emphasis and focus on it, as well as comparing it to the (alternative thing) which would come second.  Again, I'm just asking if this is something of an idiomatic sentence construction?

This is an interesting idea.

[Plumps]

Oel nulnew nì'ul payt swoato.

(Nulnew is transitive...)

...

Payt swoato nulnew oel.

Then, it would have to be payt swoatto nulnew oel
As in the example that Pawl approved (here):
     oel to ngal yerikit taron nìltsan
case endings would have to come on both nouns of the comparison.

I agree that nì'ul is not necessary, it's already in nulnew but I also feel that with the to-construct, there's an adjective or adverb missing...

[Tìtstewan]

"I prefer water to alcohol." Oel nulnew nì'ul payt swoatto. I prefer more water than alcohol.

nì'ul is an adverb(?)

Edit: I readed the wrong sentece..

Edit 2:

I agree that nì'ul is not necessary, it's already in nulnew but I also feel that with the to-construct, there's an adjective or adverb missing...

Do we can use to just as than?

[Taronyu Leleioae]

oel to ngal yerikit taron nìltsan
case endings would have to come on both nouns of the comparison.

Interesting.  Ok.  My error.

Looked up Horen 2.1.5.3.  I didn't realize that even though "to" and "sì" act like (similar to) an adposition, that they didn't follow the "no" case ending rule on the noun/object.  Example given:  horentisì (<horenti + sì).

I admit it felt a little odd having a case ending on one noun, and not on the other, in my example...

[Blue Elf]

If we use this pattern, how about:   Payt swoato nulnew oel.

Hmm, I'm not sure, but somehow I think to need an adjective...(and I beleave, I also failed with my construction)

No, to connects two things being compared, which are nouns or pronouns (nothing else, I think). You probably mean, that this kind of sentences is in form
A to B lu ADJ (Oe to nga lu win)
To is comparative marker and when it is used, we can't use nì'ul, it can be used only alone:
A: Oe lu win nìtxan. (I'm very fast)
B: Kehe, oe lu win nì'ul. (No, I'm faster)

payt swoatto nulnew oel seems fine for me, just I would personally use different word order to avoid -tt-:

payt to swoat nulnew oel (what is so strange on preferring water? When you drink it, head pains much less that after alcohol )

[Tirea Aean]

For continuing discussion, in Horen on p31, you have the example (although not from Pawl) of a sentence where it says, "Oe ngato lu koak."  However this is using the idiomatic "lu" construction.

We have the example from Frommer (on Na'viteri)

po to oe lu koak
and
poto oe lu koak

which are of the same form as that non-Frommer one but anyways...

I don't see how this is "idiomatic lu construction". It's just using lu. It's a very direct statement: He is older than me. (I guess the only real part that might be idiomatic is that you're really saying "He is old than me".) Also, I don't think the word order really matters that much in this case. Unless you want to specifically avoid ambiguity.

My input was more about whether this comparison using "nulnew", could or should be along the same pattern?

This is a good question. And my guess is, probably. I would sort of expect Oel to swoat nulnew payt to be the thing to say. Or some legal sensical order of that.

You want a word order that makes the meaning clear.  Thus having the preferred (whatever) first, gives more emphasis and focus on it, as well as comparing it to the (alternative thing) which would come second.

I don't think this is really relevant if we have cases, AND -to-

EDIT: Actually, maybe it is relevant if you are speaking and want to avoid saying something ambiguous. (like in the po to oe lu koak vs. poto oe lu koak example) Maybe this is what you were saying.

Again, I'm just asking if this is something of an idiomatic sentence construction?

I'm not so sure.

payt swoatto nulnew oel seems fine for me, just I would personally use different word order to avoid -tt-:

payt to swoat nulnew oel (what is so strange on preferring water? When you drink it, head pains much less that after alcohol )

Same, but you still have it sort of there (Speaking-wise) between payt and to. I'd personally probably say oel payt nulnew to swoat. But again, to each his own as long as your sentence is in a grammatical order that makes sense.

[Blue Elf]

payt swoatto nulnew oel seems fine for me, just I would personally use different word order to avoid -tt-:

payt to swoat nulnew oel (what is so strange on preferring water? When you drink it, head pains much less that after alcohol )

Same, but you still have it sort of there (Speaking-wise) between payt and to. I'd personally probably say oel payt nulnew to swoat. But again, to each his own as long as your sentence is in a grammatical order that makes sense.

Oh well, seems that in this case is quite hard to avoid two t's one next to other
But your word order is very interesting. Based on known examples I expect, that to can't be separated from things being compared.
A to B lu ADJ
A Bto lu ADJ - both these are ok.
but A lu ADJ to B ..... hmmm it needs consultation with Paul, I'd say
(Rutxe don't take me at my words - it applies to construction with nulnew too, lu + ADJ is just example)

[Tirea Aean]

But your word order is very interesting. Based on known examples I expect, that to can't be separated from things being compared.
A to B lu ADJ
A Bto lu ADJ - both these are ok.
but A lu ADJ to B ..... hmmm it needs consultation with Paul, I'd say

Hmmm... The to only applies to one word in the sentence; it behaves like an adp. So why would a noun be required to be next to a "adposition phrase"? In other words, if this word order is not required:

oe mì helutral hahaw
kelutralmì oe hahaw

and these are equally valid:

oe hahaw mì helutral
kelutralmì hahaw oe

, then why would this word order (according to you) be required:

po to oe lu koak
poto oe lu koak

and these (according to you) would be wrong:

po lu oeto koak
poto koak lu oe

I think those latest two here are totally valid.

The other way out is simply to avoid word orders like (1) and (2) in situations where there's a danger of misunderstanding. The following sentences don't have the potential for ambiguity that (1) and (2) do:

(3)    Poto lu oe koak.

(4)    Po lu to oe koak.

(5)    Oe lu poto koak.

(6)    Oe lu to po koak.

And many more . . .

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Pawl has mentioned on a number of occasions that the enclitic use of an adposition (or in this case, to) is more na Na'vi. They both behave the same in that the enclitic suffix affects the word in the same manner as it it as a detached word before it. Although this is kind of neat, and idiomatic in a Na'vi sense, one must be careful in using it unless they know their writing is intended for an audience of advanced speakers/readers.

One good way to keep how to works straight in your head is to substitute the words 'compared to' in place of it. If that works in the sentence you are building, chances are you will have a valid sentence.

It is very easy in Na'vi to build a perfectly grammatically correct sentence that no one can understand except the person that wrote it! For this kind of reason, word order can both help you and hurt you.

[Blue Elf]

The other way out is simply to avoid word orders like (1) and (2) in situations where there's a danger of misunderstanding. The following sentences don't have the potential for ambiguity that (1) and (2) do:

(3)    Poto lu oe koak.

(4)    Po lu to oe koak.

(5)    Oe lu poto koak.

(6)    Oe lu to po koak.

And many more . . .

Hell, why I didn't look there first? Really, all is allowed, but some orders are harder to understand in speech.

It is very easy in Na'vi to build a perfectly grammatically correct sentence that no one can understand except the person that wrote it! For this kind of reason, word order can both help you and hurt you.

Completely agree! If you try to read something from Prrton, you must think triple to get correct meaning IMHO it is better to not use all options which language gives to us. Some are easier to understand, some much harder.

[Tirea Aean]

Hell, why I didn't look there first?

:3 Maybe it slipped your mind. I can actually see now how you might have thought what you thought. Actual example sentences have mostly been in that certain order X to Y lu ADJ. But that's just a generic frame. It has to be written in some order. The other orders are just as acceptable.

Really, all is allowed, but some orders are harder to understand in speech.

True. And the more orders that are acceptable, the easier it is to be understood by switching your words around, I think.

It is very easy in Na'vi to build a perfectly grammatically correct sentence that no one can understand except the person that wrote it! For this kind of reason, word order can both help you and hurt you.

Completely agree! If you try to read something from Prrton, you must think triple to get correct meaning

Yeah. I like how he likes to think outside the box and try new things and drive us all to get out of our comfort zones and think about things. Sometimes I understand right away, and I admit that other times I too have to read up to 3 times to let it sink in.

IMHO it is better to not use all options which language gives to us. Some are easier to understand, some much harder.

Sure, it makes total sense to try to be as clear as you can be because the point of language is to communicate your ideas to other people and be understood, and to understand other people's ideas. And sometimes, even if you use a difficult order, it may be possible by using your speech to differentiate. Look at how Pawl made clear the difference between po to oe lu koak and poto lu oe koak. You can use pauses and intonation to your advantage a lot of the time. Something that you don't have when reading and writing text. And of course, what you can do with text and not speech is use colours and brackets and stuff if needed.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Prrtonri oe mllte ayngahu, lu karyu anawm! and although it is frustrating to 'decode' some of his sentences sometimes, he really shows us what Na'vi is capable of, as an expressive language. He had a great word the other day-- 'eykefatsu that I couldn't decode because I didn't think far enough out of the box.

Tirea Aean writes:

True. And the more orders that are acceptable, the easier it is to be understood by switching your words around, I think.

This is true if 1.) All those word orders are commonly used, 2.) You are dealing with intermediate or better speakers/readers and 3.) You only use the less common word orders to facilitate communication. Some variance of word order in normal discourse is not only acceptable but is encouraged. Just be aware that the primary reason for language is to convey a message.

Tirea Aean writes:

You can use pauses and intonation to your advantage a lot of the time. Something that you don't have when reading and writing text.  And of course, what you can do with text and not speech is use colours and brackets and stuff if needed.

Although I think in normal writing, colors and brackets, etc. should be avoided except in those cases where you really need to specifically emphasize something. If one becomes overly reliant on these sorts of things in their writing, one kind of wonders if they understand the language they are writing in.

[Tirea Aean]

All very true.

[Plumps]

Construct confirmed here