Does this work?

Kaltxì, Guest! Why don't you join our community?

Paul Frommer's
Language Workbook

[Ningey]

I haven't found "cautious" nìNa'vi, however, for a story I'm currently writing I would need that word.
Would nì-z<us>ong work here?

If not, any suggestions?

Irayo nìli.

Ningey

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

What context are you using it in?

[Ningey]

O.k., here's the excerpt (translated into English):

"Tsahey" the Na'vi whose arm Tìri, the Tsahìk of the Anurai, examined. It looked as if the taronyu had had bad luck on today's hunt, but instead had a bad encounter with some animal - the way the wounds looked like it could have been a nantang. The wound didn't look very good, and although it wasn't bleeding that much, there still was a danger of an inflammation.
Tìri crinkled her nose. "Kempe lalmen?"
"Ke omum" the taronyu replied. "Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'oleko."
The Tsahìk seemed to be confused. A nantang that attacked a large hunting group without warning was strange indeed, and she couldn't remember that anything like that had happened before. A nantang behaving this aggressively surely meant trouble. It seemed as if something had flushed that animal and chased it from its territory.
"Aungia akawng" she stated. "Awnga livu nìzusong!"

[hemmond]

"Ke omum" the taronyu replied. "Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'oleko."

I might be off topic, but shouldn't there be 'ameko? It all happened in the past...

[Blue Elf]

"Ke omum" the taronyu replied. "Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'oleko."

I might be off topic, but shouldn't there be 'ameko? It all happened in the past...

Not bad question, but it is correct. There's no need to repeat time infixes, when context was established once. So first you use infix of the past, then aspect only infix is ok.

back to question: z<us>ong is active participle which means "saving" (something what active save something) - it is adjective. Nì- is productive with adjectives and creates adverb, so nìzusong should be correct word (meaning is "by saving way" or similar). But in your sentence you need adjective, IMHO and zusong can't be used, as it can be used atributively only.

I'd change your sentence to:
Sweylu txo awnga makto zivong (We should take care)
or
Awnga sivalew nìzusong (here I'm unsure about correctness)

[Tanri]

I suggest the "nari si", it seems that fits here perfectly:

"Aungia akawng" she stated. "Awnga zene nari sivi nìtxan!"

As this variant is longer compared to single "cautious", it even brings more attention - the listener or reader is supposed to think that they really should be very careful.

[Blue Elf]

I was thinking about "nari si" too, but for some reason I didn't use it

[Carborundum]

"Ke omum" the taronyu replied. "Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'oleko."

I might be off topic, but shouldn't there be 'ameko? It all happened in the past...

Not bad question, but it is correct. There's no need to repeat time infixes, when context was established once. So first you use infix of the past, then aspect only infix is ok.

Not repeating the tense is OK, but switching from imperfective to perfective isn't. As it is, the sentence translates to something like 'We were hunting, but I have been attacked by some viperwolf'. Not exactly incorrect per se, but it looks very strange.

Simply drop the tense and leave the perfective out completely: Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'eko

[hemmond]

"Ke omum" the taronyu replied. "Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'oleko."

I might be off topic, but shouldn't there be 'ameko? It all happened in the past...

Not bad question, but it is correct. There's no need to repeat time infixes, when context was established once. So first you use infix of the past, then aspect only infix is ok.

Not repeating the tense is OK, but switching from imperfective to perfective isn't. As it is, the sentence translates to something like 'We were hunting, but I have been attacked by some viperwolves'. Not exactly incorrect per se, but it looks very strange.

Simply drop the tense and leave the perfective out completely: Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'eko

Yeah... That's also true... I knew, something is not good there... But I weren't sure, what it is.

[Ningey]

"Ke omum" the taronyu replied. "Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'oleko."

I might be off topic, but shouldn't there be 'ameko? It all happened in the past...

Not bad question, but it is correct. There's no need to repeat time infixes, when context was established once. So first you use infix of the past, then aspect only infix is ok.

Not repeating the tense is OK, but switching from imperfective to perfective isn't. As it is, the sentence translates to something like 'We were hunting, but I have been attacked by some viperwolves'. Not exactly incorrect per se, but it looks very strange.

Simply drop the tense and leave the perfective out completely: Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'eko

Alas, putting the sub-clause into simple present looks even more awkward. The attempt to hunt (that's why I have applied the imperfective past - they just couldn't complete it), however, the attack of some nantang happened during the attempted hunt, so the simple present doesn't seem right to me (it's not happening after the hunting party returned home).
That's why I have switched to the present perfect here (I could adjust that by shifting it to past perfect), because the attack is a finished action upon their return (which has been the reason for the Na'vi to abort the hunt in the first place - with someone getting injured, continuing the hunt isn't funny at all).

BTT: Thanks for putting me on the correct track as far as the notion of "cautious" is concerned. For some reason I must have missed that one...

[Plumps]

At one instance during my time at the LEP, Frommer commented on nìawnomum and the question whether this structure of nì- + ‹awn› in words like *nìpawnlltxe would be productive. He said it wasn’t. I’m assuming that it’s the same case with nì- + ‹us›

The only combined forms I can think of are fewtusok and txantslusam ... but that’s a whole other structure.

[Swoka Swizaw]

"Ke omum" the taronyu replied. "Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'oleko."

Am I really the only one that has caught that "nantangol" is just plain keyawr? "Nantangìl oeti 'oleko..."

[Carborundum]

Alas, putting the sub-clause into simple present looks even more awkward.

No it doesn't. Na'vi likes to drop all kinds of tense/aspect/affect markers once they've been established. Repeating them isn't wrong, but rather uncommon.

Am I really the only one that has caught that "nantangol" is just plain keyawr? "Nantangìl oeti 'oleko..."

It's not wrong if the intended meaning is 'some vipervolf'.

[Ningey]

"Ke omum" the taronyu replied. "Ayoe tarmaron, slä nantangol oeti 'oleko."

Am I really the only one that has caught that "nantangol" is just plain keyawr? "Nantangìl oeti 'oleko..."

Kehe, ma oeyä 'eylan!
Ha nga kxoleyey si.
The taronyu here said something about some unspecified nantang (hence the indefinite -o) - then add the agentive marker, and you wind up with -ol.

Alas, putting the sub-clause into simple present looks even more awkward.

No it doesn't. Na'vi likes to drop all kinds of tense/aspect/affect markers once they've been established. Repeating them isn't wrong, but rather uncommon.

Hmmmm... o.k. , however, in the sub-clause the aspect changes (however, with the entire business remaining in the past). Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but when one of these changes, does the entire procedure have to be repeated, this time with the new modifications?

[Carborundum]

Hmmmm... o.k. , however, in the sub-clause the aspect changes (however, with the entire business remaining in the past). Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but when one of these changes, does the entire procedure have to be repeated, this time with the new modifications?

Yes, if the tense/aspect/affect changes, it must be reestablished. However, using perfective aspect here is strange. It looks like you're talking about how your hunt went, and then you add "oh, and once upon a time a viperwolf attacked me". In other words, a non-sequitur.