X a soli Y

[Tìtstewan]

What about this way of thinking?

Sunu oer way a [way] si nga.

....
As for kelku si, there was mentioned, that kelku si is a "frozen" si-verb construction which would make any sense.

The weird thing I have, is that

Oel tse'a kemit a soli nga tsatseng

would also make any sense, but in case of kem si it makes for us sense, just because kem si means do which makes it easy to imagine the sense of ...kem a si....

For ...way a si...

way si means sing
just way mean song
-> way si -> make song -> sing

Of course, this way doesn't work for all si-verbs.

I don't know how it works in Russian, in German such a sentence work (btw, kelku si doesn't work / too weird in German as well as in English):

NV: Oer sunu way a nga si.
DE: Ich mag das Lied welches du machst.
EN: I like the song which you make.

And yes, probably by brain is too Germanic infected, and this doesn't mean that it makes automatically sense in Na'vi.

[Kemaweyan]

I think a noun should mean an action. In this case we may modify that with adjectives or other clauses. Kelku does not mean an action, way too. But, for example, srung is an action, so we can modify that.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Well, just think a version, without tsa-...



I got a weird idea: how is the situation, if in a sentence are two si-verbs?

Oer sunu kem sì way a nga soli.
I like the action and the song which you did.

Well, I know this is so strange and so wrong that everybody would eat me alife.

I can arrange for that....

I think what we are finding here is that these kinds of constructions can be interperted very differently by different speakers of different languages. For instance, I find some of the constructions with way make sense, but not kelku. (That one I think most of us agree on.)

[Blue Elf]

Just replace way si with kelku si:

  Sunu oer kelku a nga si.

It does not make sense. I think way si is a similar verb and it's idiomatic. So Oer sunu way a nga soli does not make sense for me.

There's no place for any affixing:

... you wouldn't modify nari in nari si or kelku in kelku si; those are more idiomatic and "frozen," where modifying the noun component wouldn't be plausible.
...
On one end are the si-constructions where the noun part is freely modifiable; on the other end are the "frozen" constructions where the nouns aren't modifiable. The more the "si" part can be interpreted as "doing" something to or with the noun part, the more modifiable the noun part is. So with kem si and srung si, I'm doing an action and doing help respectively. With nari si and kelku si, however, I'm not really "doing" eye or "doing" home.

"Way si" can't be interpreted as "do the song", so *Oer sunu way a nga soli is wrong example.
What we can do? Rewrite sentence in these ways:

Sunu oer way a nga(l?) rol. -> I like song you sang. (small problem - rol has unknown transitivity, but IMHO vtr. in this context is ok)
Sunu oer tìrusolit ngeyä. -> I like your singing.
Sunu oer tìrol ngeyä. -> I like your song (you just performed/performing)

IMHO you need just to select one

[Kemaweyan]

"Way si" can't be interpreted as "do the song", so *Oer sunu way a nga soli is wrong example.

This. Way does not mean singing («do singing» is «to sing»), so we can't use it in this way. But this example with tìrusol, I think, would be correct:

  Oer sunu tìrusol a nga soli.
  I like your singing (literally: I like the singing which you done)

[Tìtstewan]

"Way si" can't be interpreted as "do the song", so *Oer sunu way a nga soli is wrong example. This. Way does not mean singing («do singing» is «to sing»), so we can't use it in this way.

Tam. Convinced

But this example with tìrusol, I think, would be correct:   Oer sunu tìrusol a nga soli.   I like your singing (literally: I like the singing which you done)

Eltur tìtxen si!
Now this seems to be a new way dicovered: Gerund and si-verb!

[Kemaweyan]

Yeah, that is not confirmed, but I think it could be possible. There is no need to say tìrusol si, but ... tìrusol a si Y in some contexts would make sense

Also we have hawnu and tìhawnu si (from the movie). Though that is not a gerund

[Tìtstewan]

 
As for this topic, probably I will get someting nice from Pawl tomorrow.

[Kemaweyan]

Txantsan!

[Plumps]

Yeah, that is not confirmed, but I think it could be possible. There is no need to say tìrusol si, but ... tìrusol a si Y in some contexts would make sense

Problem is that *tìrusol si is not a confirmed si verb...

[Kemaweyan]

We don't need tìrusol si because we have rol However I think that if a noun in si-verbs is its gerund, then "gerund + si" would make sense. As I said, we don't need it as a "normal" verb, but it could help in constructions like in my example (tìrusol a si Y). Of course, it's just my thought and need a confirmation, but I think it's a good question

[Blue Elf]

I don't think so. Noun part of si verb is gerund, that's true - but it is very special case of gerund. I would never try to say that based on this fact we can create si verb from the gerund. It would be valid only for gerunds created from si verbs, not for "normally formed" gerunds using tì- + <us>. Languages do not behave as math

[Kemaweyan]

Gerund is an action and that action we can do. Right?

[Blue Elf]

Gerund is an action and that action we can do. Right?

No until Paul's approval

[Kemaweyan]

Logically it's possible. And I don't say that we should use tì-us si, only tì-us a si Y. How to express this meaning in another way?

[Tìtstewan]

Gerund is an action and that action we can do. Right? No until Paul's approval

I will look if I can ask Pawl about this gerund + si too. He should be on the way at home today, then he will taking a look at that E-mail, which I sent.

[Blue Elf]

Logically it's possible. And I don't say that we should use tì-us si, only tì-us a si Y. How to express this meaning in another way?

It can depend on situation. For actions like singing or playing an instrument I would try:

sunu oer tìrusol a ngal muwìntxu -> I like singing you perform/present

[Kemaweyan]

Anyway we should ask Pawl