ay + me

['eylan na'viyä]

Kaltxì

when you want to say that many pairs of eyes see more than one pair, i thought you might say that this way in na'vi:

aymenari to menari kame txan

i guess it is not known wether thats possible or not, but maybe someone has thought about that earlier.
does this sound reasonable to you?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I'd use a number adjectivally so:

mune-a menari tse'a *nultsan to 'aw-a menari.

*nultsan = (derived by me) nì'ul-nìltsan = more well/better.

Combining prefixes doesn't seem right to me.

[wm.annis]

mune-a menari tse'a *nultsan to 'aw-a menari.

*nultsan = (derived by me) nì'ul-nìltsan = more well/better.

But you don't need this.  The to is sufficient for comparison.  To quote Frommer, "no 'comparative degree' of the adjective is used."

This sentence has sufficient complexities that it might belong on the "combining our efforts" lists of questions to Karyu Pawl.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Ok, I missed that.

I haven't really been online lately because of a load of coursework, irayo ma tsmukan.

[omängum fra'uti]

Also me- isn't specifically a "pair" exactly, it's just two.

[roger]

it might be possible to use ti`mune for "pair". if we can combine prefixes, then we could have pxeme- for the three pairs of legs of a hexapod. but i don't think that's s.t. we can just decide on ourselves.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

tìmune seems plausible though.

I think it's quite reasonable actually and may have to use that.

The only problem is, would the other noun be genitive so "pxesìmune kinamä" would be three pairs of leg(s), and should it be singular or plural?

[roger]

Genitive, yes. Singular, probably. The question is whether the sg. after a num. is syntactic or semantic, grammatically required & therefore perhaps irregular, or used whenever the plural is understood from a number word. Can't answer that.

[Teyl Maktoyu Ayfìwopxä]

Lucky I can get some personal lessons for such things, because even tho I'm really good at English, I didnt understand a thing of this :p