Ma omängum fra'uti,
Thanks for your comments, I always appreciate critiques. To respond to each of your points:
1. I tend to agree with you here, but I didn't want to put in any suppositions. I'll update it as soon as we know definitively.
2. I'm not happy with 4+ either, but I wanted the beginner to have a clear distinction between the forms. Will tweak for generic "we" in the next update.
3. When I first wrote this it was up in the air, will fix.
4. This was tweaked after the feb 13 email:
The point of participles in Na'vi is that they're ONLY used attributively. If you want a gerund, use a tì- nominalization:
1. Tìtaron lu lehrrap. 'Hunting is dangerous.'
But perhaps I went too far with the interpretation. Maybe the gerund is created only when the prefix doesn't give an established noun. I would appreciate your take on this analysis.
5. Very true, one example does not make a rule. I just wanted to include the -tu for completeness. I think I'll tweak it to be a less definitive statement.
6. Yeah, I've seen it a lot too. Most of the tips and language notes I wrote in the guide are there to take away the "common questions" beginners have.
7. I knew when I got to the chapter on verbs that there would be issues with <ol> and <am>. My original intention was to use as little excess linguistic terminology as possible
. Maybe I should just write out a bunch of examples instead. If anyone has a suggestion for how to improve this without introducing more terminology, please share.
8. I like to think of that as a work in progress section. It's not perfect, but I think that what's there at least is accurate.
9. I don't know why, but when I looked at this:
"Si constructions" have a special syntax. They're considered intransitive--a bit strange, perhaps, but reasonable, I think. That is, "X si" is thought of as "engage in the X-activity," an intransitive concept. What would normally be considered the object is then in the dative, along the lines of, "engage in the X-activity to/for Y."
I saw "object" as "subject." Thank you so much for pointing this one out. It is a big error on my part.
10. Was not aware of the alternate form, thanks. As for teri-...I used Taronyu's dictionary to double check everything and (at the time at least) he said that what he was calling and adp. only went before the word what he was calling a prep could go before the word, or after as an enclitic. This is exactly backwards in my understanding of what an adposition and preposition are, but I just "translated" his usage into mine for my guide. I don't know if he's changed his definitions, but I see it currently listed as an adp. which in my vernacular would be a preposition. Do you know of any example where teri- is used as an enclitic or is explicitly said to be an adposition?
11. This came out of a discussion with Plumps83 concerning the following email on Feb 1:
And speaking of Neytiri's and Jake's eveng . . . and holpxay ayzekwäyä feyä . . . that's one for JC to figure out. <g>
We thought from this that the genitive suffix causes a vowel change/contraction when attached to a pronoun
. Perhaps these are optional forms? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this one. It is ngeyä and not ngayä.