fì’u, fwa … - the old problem

[Plumps]

Ma eylan,

I'm confused again...
Is there an up-to-date overview about the use of these words? I tried to find something in wm.annis's grammar but couldn't find what I was looking for...

I know about the general stuff like the phrases (lam oer fwa..., law oer fwa... etc.)
I know that I use futa for when there needs to be an accusative (fpìl futa..., omum futa... etc.)
I know about the use of tsnì, as far as we can tell

What about the line I used in the translation of »Be thou my vision«?
livu lun fwa sìlpey oe which I wanted to mean »be the reason that I hope«

What about »I'm angry that there are clouds«
oe sti fwa(?) lu fìwopx ?


Omum oel futa layu ayngar aylì'u amuiä fte aynga tsun srung sivi oer...*

[Kemaweyan]

What about »I'm angry that there are clouds«
oe sti fwa(?) lu fìwopx ?

I think here should be furia

  oe sti furia lu fìwopx

[kewnya txamew'itan]

What about the line I used in the translation of »Be thou my vision«?
livu lun fwa sìlpey oe which I wanted to mean »be the reason that I hope«

The fwa is unnecessary here as the "fì'u" component is just taking the value of "lun", just replace the fwa with "a" and you should be good to go.

The way to think about this is that, if you use a fì'u +  a construction the relative clause becomes an argument of the verb whereas here you want it to be an attribute of the noun "lun" so you just use a normal attributive "a".

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Plumps is absolutely right in identifying this as an 'old problem'. I am glad I am not alone in being confused on how to best use this class of words. I have learned a lot in the last few days, especially from  kewnya txamew'itan, but I am far from being able to use these clause connectors with any confidence. I am really hoping that some sort of guide will be created that clearly and systematically explains the proper use of the broad range of Na`vi terms available to connect clauses (and act as dummy words or placeholders in the process, something that does not happen in English.). It needs to be something that is as systematic as the language will allow, and very importantly, written for people without a degree in linguistics!

[Plumps]

The fwa is unnecessary here as the "fì'u" component is just taking the value of "lun", just replace the fwa with "a" and you should be good to go.

Yeah, this possibility actually came to mind when I went offline

Do you agree with Kem on the second sentence? with furia?
That's even more of a problem... I try to avoid the topic as much as possible (except for those canon examples we have, e.g. with irayo si) ... but now it seems it's acquired whenever we'd use a direct object but Na'vi doesn't allow it...

The way to think about this is that, if you use a fì'u +  a construction the relative clause becomes an argument of the verb whereas here you want it to be an attribute of the noun "lun" so you just use a normal attributive "a".

Ngaytxoa ... I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean...

[kewnya txamew'itan]

In the second sentence, furia seems reasonable although I might err on the side of caution and use a causative construction and "a fì'ul".

An argument of a verb is a word that is part of the action or defines the action the verb describes (apart from the verb itself), this could be the subject, an object or an adpositional phrase (I think adverbs would also be verb arguments strictly speaking). What I'm saying is that using the fì'u + a constructions makes the relative clause  describe the verb not a noun before the construction.

[Plumps]

An argument of a verb is a word that is part of the action or defines the action the verb describes (apart from the verb itself), this could be the subject, an object or an adpositional phrase (I think adverbs would also be verb arguments strictly speaking). What I'm saying is that using the fì'u + a constructions makes the relative clause  describe the verb not a noun before the construction.

Wow, that really helped! Thank you so much!
So, because I describe lun in the first sentence it's only a, and because lam oer is a sentence fwa comes into play to describe lam... That makes sense
I hope I don't get confused again...