Double Negatives - NOT OPTIONAL

Started by Prrton, May 02, 2010, 11:03:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Prrton

Quote from: Prrton (to K. Pawl via e-mail)

Is double negation required for the sentence:

  «Ke'u lu ngay» ??

Must it be:

  «Ke'u ke lu ngay»

  in order to be grammatically/semantically correct?

Or, is it acceptable with a non-negated verb, but «Ke'u ke lu ngay» is 95% better?


Quote from: Paul Frommer in response via e-mailIt really should be "Ke'u ke lu ngay."

"Ke'u lu ngay" isn't grammatical. (I think I've been consistent in that.)



So there we are...

omängum fra'uti

I figured as much.  The tone of him recommending a negative in the past didn't seem like it was saying "I'd recommend a double negative" it seemed more like "This needs a double negative".

And dang he answers you fast!  I'm STILL waiting on answers to the questions from "Combining our efforts", and I sent another email yesterday running some stuff by him and didn't get a response.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Prrton

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on May 02, 2010, 11:19:41 PM

And dang he answers you fast!  I'm STILL waiting on answers to the questions from "Combining our efforts", and I sent another email yesterday running some stuff by him and didn't get a response.

He doesn't always answer me quickly. The only PRAYER for getting a quick answer has been to make the question painfully simple and adding a short example à la the one above doesn't seem to hurt either (as long as it's very very short).

My verbosity does NOT serve me well.

I believe, however, that he's trying to work on Na'vi some tonight and possibly again tomorrow.  ;D

As a general rule moving forward, your and Wm.'s "Combining Our Efforts" methodology seems (to me) like the best way to go.

In fact, is it time to start a III yet?

omängum fra'uti

I was waiting until I got answers to II.  And my idea was to make it an ongoing thing.  I didn't ask all the questions we had, just took two categories of questions, and as questions get answered I move them off the list.  (In the future I may take just one depending on size, so it won't require him to sit down for as long to respond, and hopefully we'll get an answer quicker.)
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

tsrräfkxätu

#4
Tewti! Nang! Fìkrr a'aw aysä'efu oeyä ke lamu keyawrr! :D
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

ShadowedSin

So wait, instead of turning the entire sentence negative, negation only works for the topic that it is negating?
\Shadow's Sin
A Blog discussion Amazon and notes for the Arrow Child Novella!

Arrow Child
An Online Serial Novel and the first story in the Amazon Diaspora Saga.

'eylan na'viyä

so does this apply for 'e'al + "negative" noun too? eg:
QuoteNga lu 'e'ala skxawng a oe tsole'a.
(http://forum.learnnavi.org/intermediate/insults/msg201210/#msg201210)

omängum fra'uti

'e'al isn't really a grammatical negative...  just a semantic one.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

tsrräfkxätu

#8
Also, semantically the "best moron" is still a loser no matter how you look at it, an adjectival modifier one way or another isn't going to make its negative connotation disappear. But yeah, I'd say that the "best moron" is less of a loser (or at the least a better liked one) than the "worst moron", that's how it works in the only double neg language I speak, at any rate. If you're uncertain you can always stick to judgment-neutral attributives like biggest, least, etc.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

Prrton

There may be some subtleties somewhere in some nook or cranny, but for now I'd say that if the main noun/pronoun in the phrase you're talking about starts with something that's clearly derived from KE then the verb needs/requires it too.

  Kepo kayä ne na'rìng. »»»» Kepo KE kayä ne na'rìng.

  Kea txum fìsyuvemì lu. »»»» Kea txum fìsyuvemì KE lu.

  Lu ke'u lehhrap mì satseng. »»»» KE lu ke'u lehhrap mì satseng (kaw'it).

For me personally, it's best to think if it as a "bad habit" from English to not go check the verb to make sure it's negative too. I quite like throwing in lots of 'negativity' because it's common in Spanish (and certain English dialects/registers do it too). It makes the language more flavorful. But, I only learned yesterday that it was REQUIRED.

Fko zene nivume nìtxan.

tsrräfkxätu

#10
Quote from: Prrton on May 03, 2010, 06:03:17 PM
There may be some subtleties somewhere in some nook or cranny, but for now I'd say that if the main noun/pronoun in the phrase you're talking about starts with something that's clearly derived from KE then the verb needs/requires it too.

Like, such as...
Oe ke kawkrr ke kelku ke kelutralmì. :D
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

omängum fra'uti

Kea oe ke fpìl kea futa kea tsaw keyawr ke lu.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Prrton

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on May 03, 2010, 08:10:14 PM
Kea oe ke fpìl kea futa kea tsaw keyawr ke lu.

That's a prodigious amount of negation you've produced there. Impressive!

tsrräfkxätu

On a more serious (and somewhat related) note, if you have an adj/adv that's negative by default, and you negate it then you end up with the opposite term, i.e. the positive(-ish) counterpart. If you think about it, such "double negatives" are allowed in English as well, by merit of the fact that they are not, actually, double negatives.

incorrectly/?nìkeyawr (not correctly)
not incorrectly/ke ?nìkeyawr (not wrongly)

unheard-of (unprecedented)
not unheard-of (familiar)

kerusey ("not-living" – dead)
ke kerusey (not dead – alive)

kakrel ("no-picture" – blind)
ke kakrel (not blind – sighted/seeing)

Kerusey lu fìnantang. — This nantang is dead.
Ke lu kerusey fìnantang. — This nantang isn't dead.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

Prrton

Quote from: tsrräfkxätu on May 03, 2010, 08:49:55 PM
On a more serious (and somewhat related) note, if you have an adj/adv that's negative by default, and you negate it then you end up with the opposite term, i.e. the positive(-ish) counterpart. If you think about it, such "double negatives" are allowed in English as well, by merit of the fact that they are not, actually, double negatives.

incorrectly/?nìkeyawr (not correctly)
not incorrectly/ke ?nìkeyawr (not wrongly)

unheard-of (unprecedented)
not unheard-of (familiar)

kerusey ("not-living" – dead)
ke kerusey (not dead – alive)

kakrel ("no-picture" – blind)
ke kakrel (not blind – sighted/seeing)

Kerusey lu fìnantang. — This nantang is dead.
Ke lu kerusey fìnantang. — This nantang isn't dead.

This is MUCH MORE IN THE VEIN of the theoretical "nooks & crannies" I was referring to earlier than Kelutral.

Thank you for the rigor!

Plumps

Quote from: Prrton on May 03, 2010, 06:03:17 PM
  Kepo kayä ne na'rìng. »»»» Kepo KE kayä ne na'rìng.

I thought the word for noone was ›kawtu‹ ... not ›kepo‹ ???
oel fpìl futa lì'u fpi kea tute limvu san kawtu sìk ... kehe san kepo sìk ???

tsrräfkxätu

Quote from: Plumps on May 04, 2010, 07:08:30 AM
Quote from: Prrton on May 03, 2010, 06:03:17 PM
 Kepo kayä ne na'rìng. »»»» Kepo KE kayä ne na'rìng.

I thought the word for noone was ›kawtu‹ ... not ›kepo‹ ???
oel fpìl futa lì'u fpi kea tute limvu san kawtu sìk ... kehe san kepo sìk ???


Hmm...now that you mention it, I don't recall having seen kepo either. On the other hand, kea po could be valid, and mean "not him/her", I think.

Lamu kea po futa oel tse'a.Ke lamu po futa oel tse'a.

(There's no double neg in this case.)
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

Prrton

Quote from: Plumps on May 04, 2010, 07:08:30 AM
Quote from: Prrton on May 03, 2010, 06:03:17 PM
  Kepo kayä ne na'rìng. »»»» Kepo KE kayä ne na'rìng.

I thought the word for noone was ›kawtu‹ ... not ›kepo‹ ???
oel fpìl futa lì'u fpi kea tute limvu san kawtu sìk ... kehe san kepo sìk ???


It's very possible that I imagined it! HRH!!  :o

Or it might have been something that roger theorized for a day and a half 5 months ago and I started using it. HRH nìmun.

I can't find it in a dictionary either, so I'll change my wicked ways!

  »KAWTU« it is!

  (Or do I have to say, "'KAWTU' it isN'T!" ??)  ;)

Irayo!

kewnya txamew'itan

I was just looking over some old stuff in the canon and was remind of Frommer's sentence:

Ke fparmìl oel futa lu tute a tsun nì-Na'vi set fìfya pivlltxe!

and I noticed the ke on fparmìl and the lack of one on tute, does this mean that negation is done on a clause level as opposed to a sentence level (in which case this could get interesting with modals) or is this sentence now considered incorrect?
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

wm.annis

Quote from: kemeoauniaea on May 06, 2010, 02:14:47 PMand I noticed the ke on fparmìl and the lack of one on tute, does this mean that negation is done on a clause level as opposed to a sentence level (in which case this could get interesting with modals) or is this sentence now considered incorrect?

Ooh, pleonastic negation had better work at the clause level.  That would be freaky grammar to cross clause boundaries.  The tute isn't part of the fparmìl clause in any way — futa is.