"I caused myself to..."

['Oma Tirea]

'Aw hì'i tìpawm: how would you translate these sentences:

1} I made myself kill.

2} I caused myself to laugh.

My attempts:

1} Oe tsp<eyk><äp>ang

2} Oe h<äp><eyk>angaham

However, somehow this doesn't seem right because <eyk> and <äp> come in the same infix position

Can anyone see the problem here?

Irayo in advance.

[Carborundum]

In an answer to a question by Kemaweyan regarding his latest blog entry, Frommer hints that there will be a post in the future dealing with the order of pre-first infixes.

The question of how the "pre-first position" infixes relate to each other and to the rest of the infix inventory is important, so I'll save it for a future post.

['Oma Tirea]

Tam.  Oe tivìng nari rofìkrr....

['Oma Tirea]

OK... I see a tad more insight floating around out there....

From Horen LeNa'vi (and I'm not quite sure where that idea verifably came from)

3.6.2.1. Participles of reflexive or causative verbs take the participle infixes
after the transitivity infix, z‹eyk›‹us›o.

...but what does that say for using the causative and reflexive together?  Is it even allowable?

...and what does Na'vi have for affect?  Something yet to be developed by Frommer?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I don't think that <äp>+<eyk> is really justified. The way English forms both segments, they mesh together nicely, in na'vi, they don't, we just have that <äp> lowers the valency by 1 and that <eyk> raises it by one, put them together and you get back where you started. Because of this, whilst it would be possible to make an unambiguous system, I think it is more likely that the na'vi don't distinguish between "I hunted" and "I made myself hunt" or that, if they do it uses a completely new construction (such as an emphatic <2> infix, a topical on the subject or a pseudo-topical reiteration of an established subject).

...and what does Na'vi have for affect?  Something yet to be developed by Frommer?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, do you mean emphatic statements or position <2> infixes or something else entirely? For emphatic statements I imagine that it follows the same pattern as pro-drop languages where an explicit re-iteration of the subject (or other omitted argument) emphasises the sentence or else that it was a use of the topical (although, unless that confirmed I'd stay away from it).

[Kì'eyawn]

I feel like this desire to combine the reflexive and causative might come from a misuse of an English idiom.  "I made myself X" is a set phrase that conveys the idea that there was something i didn't want to do but i did it anyway—i willed myself to do it.  If anything, i could imagine a Na'vi construct that goes something like Oe 'willed' tsnì kem sivi, which would convey this idea.

[Plumps]

I don't think that <äp>+<eyk> is really justified.

Just a reminder of K. Pawl's comment on Kemaweyan's question about the use of zeyko

Tsalsungay tsalì'u alu zeykuso lu eyawr. Slä zene fko pivlltxe san zäpeyko sìk. (*Zeykäpo lu keyawr.)

which means, to me, that ‹eyk›, ‹us›, and ‹äp› can appear at the same time/place even though they are part of the same infix class...
and

The question of how the "pre-first position" infixes relate to each other and to the rest of the infix inventory is important, so I'll save it for a future post.

Don't know whether that helps the discussion here but it reminds us that there are still a few things to look forward to

[kewnya txamew'itan]

My argument wasn't based on the fact that they took the same position, we have plenty of examples of two infixes in the same position merging (<iyev>, <aly>, <ary> all in the future tense alone), but rather on the fact that they have opposite effects and it would be like putting both <ei> and <äng> in the verb, it wouldn't make any sense semantically (provided we analyse <eyk> and <äp> as changing valency rather than as parallels of English (and many other European languages)' constructions for the causative and reflexive).

[wm.annis]

but rather on the fact that they have opposite effects and it would be like putting both <ei> and <äng> in the verb, it wouldn't make any sense semantically (provided we analyse <eyk> and <äp> as changing valency rather than as parallels of English (and many other European languages)' constructions for the causative and reflexive).

On the other hand, if an infixed word becomes lexicalized and its meaning starts to drift a bit away from simply the sum of the root and the infix, it then becomes just a normal verb, whatever its origin.  I wouldn't expect such pairs of ‹äp› and ‹eyk› to be very common, but I don't think they'd be complete gibberish, either.

Nìkeftxo, pivey zene awnga.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

True, if the infixed form were to diverge enough to become a separate lexeme then I think it would be justified to use both, if however, as would be true in the vast majority of cases, the infixed form was merely a modified form of the same lexeme then I do not believe it would be correct to assume that such a pairing would be productive.

pivey zene awnga.

Is this word order (specifically the order of the modal and subjunctive verbs) confirmed or is it an assumption based on free constituent order?

[wm.annis]

pivey zene awnga.

Is this word order (specifically the order of the modal and subjunctive verbs) confirmed or is it an assumption based on free constituent order?

I have some vague memory trace that maybe Frommer once used something like this.  Nonetheless, there's no reason it shouldn't work in a free constituent order language.