Lu and the Dative, and the Epistemology of Na'vi

[Nìwotxkrr Tìyawn]

I believe that Taronyu is right to make this assumption, sometimes assumtions have to be made and when they are made you better hope that it was very well researched. Assumptions will have to be made at one point or another, in the end an arguement could be made of why bothering to learn Na'vi before all the rules are completed because if Frommer wanted he could turn everything we know upside down in an instant. Who knows, Frommer might read and it might end up as Canon because of Taronyu coming up with it in the first place.

Kìyevame ulte Eywa ngahu ma smukan sì smuke.

[Taronyu]

wm.annis, I agree with you here. This tension is important. That's why it's great that we have you and steven to reign me and others in.

I'm still not sure that I'm wrong in stating that the argument I came up with here isn't the most valid, however.

I would like that, but doubt it, Nìwotkxkrr, haha.

[Nìwotxkrr Tìyawn]

wm.annis, I agree with you here. This tension is important. That's why it's great that we have you and steven to reign me and others in.

I'm still not sure that I'm wrong in stating that the argument I came up with here isn't the most valid, however.

I would like that, but doubt it, Nìwotkxkrr, haha.

I'm sure everyone here is ready to call you Ma Sempul Jr. XD

[Taronyu]

wm.annis, I agree with you here. This tension is important. That's why it's great that we have you and steven to reign me and others in.

I'm still not sure that I'm wrong in stating that the argument I came up with here isn't the most valid, however.

I would like that, but doubt it, Nìwotkxkrr, haha.

I'm sure everyone here is ready to call you Ma Sempul Jr. XD

That would make William my older brother.

[hufwesiyu]

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions....

Both Taronyu and Wiliam are playing it safe, it's just that their definitions of "safe" differ I can see merit with each version, but I can also see that there is a possibility for unity....

Taronyu asserts that you must not use -ru lu for possession. That is safe because there is nothing in known existence that supports the validity of -ru lu for possessions. Going by this you won't accidentally use it incorrectly.

William asserts that there is nothing in known existence that negates the validity of -ru lu for possessions, therefore why should it be forbidden ? Going by this you might accidentally use it incorrectly.

From an "absolute safety" point of view, Taronyu's assertion is "safer" than William's; it is better to use a sub-optimal correct expression than to use an incorrect one. That said, I don't think that William was actually advocating the use of -ru lu with possessions, but merely suggesting that forbidding it, without proper evidence, would be incorrect. It is also entirely possible that -ru lu is actually valid. We just don't know.

Perhaps the answer to this is to turn the rule into a recommendation ? Ie "you can use -ru lu for states, but it is not recommended for use with possessions due to lack of attested examples". This is "safe" on both counts, it tells you what is definitely known to be correct, and warns you of things that might be wrong without actually forbidding them. Food for thought?

Eywa ngahu.

[txura utral]

Although I agree with Taronyu about the Dative+lu working only for states, I'm going to continue using it for possession of physical objects until we have a verb meaning "to possess". I'm already limited enough as it is with our small vocab.

[Taronyu]

I've often thought about using a mathematical rating for words or rules. For my derived words, for instance, I often have major issues where one is derived from one word, while others are derived from many. The latter is certainly more trustable than the former. Here is one of those times: I think that lu + dat for stative events can 100% be trusted, while lu + ru to mean possession should certainly be not as trusted.

Txura utral, I've often found that rewording can express the same thing semantically, most of the time.

[omängum fra'uti]

That I can completely agree with.  The main counter-point I was making is that we don't know it can't be used that way, any more than don't know it can.

On another note, a couple lines of dialog (Straight from a picture of Jake's dialog in Na'vi from a making of video) which include lu+dat

I respectfully request the Dream Hunt.
Ätxäle si tsnì livu oheru Uniltaron.
Request make/do that be-SBJ 1-DAT dream-hunt

Eytukan, I have something to say, to everyone.
Ma Eytukan, lu oeru aylì'u frapor.
VOC eytukan, be 1-DAT word-PL everybody-?
(No, that "r" on the end of frapo is not a typo, that's what they had written down.)

I'm not a linguist so what I consider a state here may not be the same as what others would consider a state, but neither of those seem to be possessive of states.  However, neither are they possessive of physical things either, but rather of concepts.

[roger]

Ma omängum fra'uti,

Could you give us a link for those lines of dialog? The first illustrates that odd tsnì, and the second a line of the film that made no sense until now, and suggests that the dative of 3PRO is -r (po: por), which means a double dative, which you'd need for "I have X for you" if possession is a dative construction. I wonder what else might be hiding in those lines.

BTW, it seems to me that possession is a state, and Frommer seems to extend his constructions pretty broadly.

[omängum fra'uti]

Srane, tsaylì'ul tok tsatseng.

[roger]

Srane, tsaylì'ul tok tsatseng.

Ireiyo!

(Lu san ireiyo, ke san irayo, ko?)

[tsrräfkxätu]

Hey,

I've just stumbled upon this thread, and thought I'd chip in. While I think (and it seems most everyone else agrees) that Taronyu's reasoning is convincing, its correctness with respect to the language as a whole cannot be posited without substantial evidence. Consider the following examples from Hungarian:

Possession:
Jó íja van a harcosnak.
Good bow-POS-3P-S is-3P-S the warrior-DAT.
Good bow is to the warrior.
The warrior has a good bow.

State:
Súlyos sebe van a harcosnak.
Serious wound-POS-3P-S is-3P-S the warrior-DAT.
Serious wound is to the warrior.
The warrior has a serious wound/is seriously wounded.

This of course doesn't resolve the debate at hand, but shows that in a non-IE language (the likes of which I believe were the primary inspiration for Na'vi) such constructions can be used to express state and possession alike.

Cheers,
blueme

[Taronyu]

Yes, I know that's possible. But I haven't seen any uses of lu to show physical possession yet.

We do have good information that's not only for stative, now, from Steven. Those are good points.

[Swoka Swizaw]

A simple way that I've decided to put all of this is that Eywa is the grand, global agent of/to/for the Na'vi. All concepts (such as "fpom") that follow "-ru lu" are provided upon the Na'vi by Eywa. More or less, "Ngaru lu ____ srak?" is inquiring what has befallen one (as patient) at that given time...

This to me, perhaps a given to you all, makes the most sense as their whole idea of their world (I can only suppose to a certain extent) is an extention of Eywa, herself. ("Energy is only borrowed; we eventually have to give it back." Whose energy?)

As for the idea of possession, this concept alone (as there is no other evidence, yet) debunks that idea for me. Slä, pesul fay'ut omum?

[Na'rìghawnu]

Well ... knowing Frommers statement about the connection between language and culture/philosophy, this seems to lack a real foundation.

From his UGO-interview:

Jordan Hoffman: Well, this leads to an actual question – the Na’vi philosophy is a very natural, holistic way of life. Those blue suckers are very green. Did this in any way inform the construction of the language?

Paul Frommer: No. Only with certain concepts that I knew needed to be in there like “Tree of Souls” or “Hometree” and some of the religious concepts of Eowah. Otherwise, no, I just wanted exotic sounds to the Western ear – the ejectives the [proceeds clicking and making beat box sounds] and something fun for the audience. There is really no connection between the grammatical structure or aural quality of a language with the culture of a people.

[txura utral]

I've often thought about using a mathematical rating for words or rules. For my derived words, for instance, I often have major issues where one is derived from one word, while others are derived from many. The latter is certainly more trustable than the former. Here is one of those times: I think that lu + dat for stative events can 100% be trusted, while lu + ru to mean possession should certainly be not as trusted.

Txura utral, I've often found that rewording can express the same thing semantically, most of the time.

In that case, I'll attempt to reword everything I say so that our limited vocabulary can express it. After all, Prrton and the rest of you seem to be doing fine with it.

[Taronyu]

In that case, I'll attempt to reword everything I say so that our limited vocabulary can express it. After all, Prrton and the rest of you seem to be doing fine with it.

I think this may be our only option. We're not doing fine, but we're getting by. Glad to see you're going to give it a try.

[Nessimon]

Firstly, I am always excited about new and innovative findings. The notion on dative construction is very exciting and a clever spotting. Irayo, ma Taronyu!

Secondly, this opened a very important debate on what is philosophically accepted regarding our process of discoveries (which perhaps should have it's own thread.) This forum needs to be tolerant towards all different attitudes (except perhaps sheer neglect,) since these are what makes being a part of this exciting.

What I'm saying, is that both the innovative and the critical voices are important for what we're trying to do here. And I appreciate everyone's effort very much!   

[Nìwotxkrr Tìyawn]

Sempul Frommer once said in an interview that eventually Na'vi would end up growing by the community, much like how Klingon did.

[Taronyu]

Firstly, I am always excited about new and innovative findings. The notion on dative construction is very exciting and a clever spotting. Irayo, ma Taronyu!

Secondly, this opened a very important debate on what is philosophically accepted regarding our process of discoveries (which perhaps should have it's own thread.) This forum needs to be tolerant towards all different attitudes (except perhaps sheer neglect,) since these are what makes being a part of this exciting.

What I'm saying, is that both the innovative and the critical voices are important for what we're trying to do here. And I appreciate everyone's effort very much!   

Thanks. I changed the name of the thread, so that topic should be discussed in here, too. We might as well discuss it with an example.