Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #4: sìltsan; ke; nang

[wm.annis]

Today we have three more updates from the Outstanding Questions document.


Sìltsan vs. Lefpom (#10)

The meaning of sìltsan is "meeting its purpose."  Aristotle would say it's for something that is "good of its kind."  It also means good in the sense of "morally good."  Lefpom is more "pleasant" or "pleasurable."


Rules of 'Ke' (#11)

There were several questions about ke, not all of which were covered.  However:

With si-construction verbs, ke goes before si, po pamrel ke si (with a shift in accent to ke from pamrel).  Note: this is like the prohibitive rä'ä, as in txopu rä'ä si don't be afraid.

However, when ke is attached to another word (fteke, zenke) it stays put, fteke pamrel sivi.

This wasn't part of the outstanding questions, but came up on Sunday.  Someone wanted to say, "not everyone understood" and said ke frapo tslolam.  Frommer corrected this to ke frapo ke tslolam.  I asked if this could be used with other pronouns, but really this has to do with the prenoun fra- "all, every."  You can negate just the fra-, but just as with negative pronouns and adverbs (kawtu, kawkrr, etc.), you also have to negate the verb.

 Ke fratawtute ke tsun kivame Not every human can See.


Nang (#17)

I hope someone will chime in with details on this.  I have the vague sense I missed something.

Nang is used to comment on something that is already extreme.  Words based on txan are of course about extremity.  Kì'eyawn's notes have "pleasurable surprise" here, which is a subtlety that escaped my note-taking.  I also don't think we came up with any other words which marked an extremity nang could comment on.

[Kemaweyan]

Thanks, ma William

I have one question about ke. As we know, before nouns (and probably before pronouns too?) we must use kea instead of just ke, right? But why here is ke fratawtute? Maybe it should be kea fratawtute? Or this means [ke fra-] tawtute like in english "not all", i.e. ke is related to prefix fra- which is not noun and therefore we must use ke?

[wm.annis]

Or this means [ke fra-] tawtute like in english "not all", i.e. ke is related to prefix fra- which is not noun and therefore we must use ke?

Exactly.

[Kemaweyan]

Ok, thanks. And what about ke(a) fìtawtute or ke(a) tsatawtute?

[wm.annis]

Ok, thanks. And what about ke(a) fìtawtute or ke(a) tsatawtute?

We have to wait on that.  He made faces at me when I asked for other ways to use ke that were like the ke frapo... one.

[Nìwotxkrr Tìyawn]

It's nice to have some clearing up on sìltsan and lefpom even if it came out as many of us probably expected.

Btw, what kind of face are you talking about? A "I'ma kill you" face , a "wtf?" face , a "wiiiiii!" face or what? If it's too much prying you don't have to answer.

[Prrton]

It's nice to have some clearing up on sìltsan and lefpom even if it came out as many of us probably expected.

Btw, what kind of face are you talking about? A "I'ma kill you" face , a "wtf?" face , a "wiiiiii!" face or what? If it's too much prying you don't have to answer.

We all had so many questions and "what ifs" that I think it was likely more along the lines of a "here we go again" face:

   

  Kefyak?


PS: for ke frapo ke _______. It's easier for me to think of it as "not EACH X" __________. OR "A subset of X cannot/doesn't __________.

[Kì'eyawn]

Now here's an interesting question that comes up with ke fra-:

*Ke tsole'a oel ke frapoti

Is this kosher?  Also, is it different from Ke tsole'a oel frapoti?

[Prrton]

Now here's an interesting question that comes up with ke fra-:

*Ke tsole'a oel ke frapoti

Is this kosher?  Also, is it different from Ke tsole'a oel frapoti?

I can't make sense out of *Ke tsole'a oel ke frapoti.

  "I have not seen not-each one" ??

The 2nd one makes perfect sense to me. "I have not seen each/every-one." (My eyes did not land on a subset (possibly only a subset of 1) of them.)

[Kemaweyan]

I think it can be

  Ke tsole'a oel kawtut.
  I have seen no one.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Now here's an interesting question that comes up with ke fra-:

*Ke tsole'a oel ke frapoti

Is this kosher?  Also, is it different from Ke tsole'a oel frapoti?

I can't make sense out of *Ke tsole'a oel ke frapoti.

  "I have not seen not-each one" ??

The 2nd one makes perfect sense to me. "I have not seen each/every-one." (My eyes did not land on a subset (possibly only a subset of 1) of them.)

The first would seem to me to be a confusing way of saying "lu tuteo a ke tsole'a oe".

[Taronyu]

I took away that nang as the mirative particle was the decision...

[Kì'eyawn]

Now here's an interesting question that comes up with ke fra-:

*Ke tsole'a oel ke frapoti

Is this kosher?  Also, is it different from Ke tsole'a oel frapoti?

I can't make sense out of *Ke tsole'a oel ke frapoti.

  "I have not seen not-each one" ??

The 2nd one makes perfect sense to me. "I have not seen each/every-one." (My eyes did not land on a subset (possibly only a subset of 1) of them.)

The first would seem to me to be a confusing way of saying "lu tuteo a ke tsole'a oe".

Srane.  I was thinking out loud (in text?) whether this ke fra- ="not everyone" thing was meaningful predicatively.  My sense is that it's not.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I think that it's meaningful ma kì'eywan, just only in the sense that "sells-fish-man-sells-fish-there-shop" is meaningful, it's just that there is probably a nicer way of saying it (like fishmonger's).

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Now here's an interesting question that comes up with ke fra-:

*Ke tsole'a oel ke frapoti

Is this kosher?  Also, is it different from Ke tsole'a oel frapoti?

Both of these immediately made sense to me. The first one to me seems to communicate more clearly what I think Kì'eyawn is trying to say, e.g. 'I see people, but not all of them'. The second statement is easier to 'decode', but doesn't seem to convey the meaning as clearly. The second statement also lacks the double negative, which is something I still don't really understand.

Maybe my thinking and approach to Na`vi is a bit different for others who find the second sentence a better choice. I wonder then, if this isn't an insight as to why I am not yet grasping some important principle (that, for instance, has been hindering me in writing good sentences) about this language.

The sìltsan vs lefpom distinction is very useful. irayo!

Finally, what is 'mirative'?

[Ftiafpi]

Here's my notes on "Nang":

What exactly does Nang do:

Generally, yes. Nang is a "txan intensifier". Although there could be an extreme lexical item without txan that takes nang.

Also an exclamation of surprise.

Mirativity.

I took away that "nang" was used to "intensify txan". I.E. "Txantsan nang!" > "Txantsan!" and so on. Also, I remember Karyu Pawl mentioning that nang was also a Na'vi exclamation of surprise. If I recall correctly, from before we had "nang" as something similar to "wow!" where it was used as a positive exclamation only.

Mirativity is from "admire". It was a term that was new to Paul so I gather it's not in common usage. I think William brought it up so I'll leave it to him to explain but I think it meant that it was a word that carried with it a quality of admiration. Keep in mind this was something not brought up by Pawl so I'm not sure how applicable it is to "nang".

Edit: Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirative

[Kì'eyawn]

...Mirativity is from "admire". It was a term that was new to Paul so I gather it's not in common usage. I think William brought it up so I'll leave it to him to explain but I think it meant that it was a word that carried with it a quality of admiration.

I thought it was Taronyu...?

[Ftiafpi]

...Mirativity is from "admire". It was a term that was new to Paul so I gather it's not in common usage. I think William brought it up so I'll leave it to him to explain but I think it meant that it was a word that carried with it a quality of admiration.

I thought it was Taronyu...?

I stand corrected then.