I cut my finger?

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì, ma smuk.  So, we have a reflexive infix... but i'm wondering about its extensions.

In English, we would say, "I cut myself," but "I cut my finger"—the reflexive drops out.  But in French, for example, you would say Je me coupe le doigt—literally, "I cut myself the finger."  So, we know Oe mäpun'i, but...

In Na'vi, would it be *Oel mun'i zekwät oeyä," or *Oe(l?) mäpun'i zekwät?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I'd probably use the topical and say zekwäri oe mäpun'i but there might be a nicer way of saying it.

[Lance R. Casey]

Or perhaps a prepositional phrase, which is how it's done in Swedish:

Oeri mäpun'i zekwämì (I here use the topic to save one occurrence of oe, but that's just a stylistic choice)

Muvea tìkenong tsumkeyä awngeyä is, however, not possible, since the reflexive prevents the occurrence of an accusative object, and therefore the ergative does not surface either. (For reference, here is the Frommerian description of ‹äp›.)

[kewnya txamew'itan]

(I here use the topic to save one occurrence of oe, but that's just a stylistic choice)

It doesn't save another occurrence of oe,the detopicalised version would just be "oe mäpun'i zekwämì" with the <äp> requiring you to only state oe once, you're just adding an extra syllable for almost no semantic benefit or useful redundancy.

The idea of a adpositional phrase is a good one, the only problem being the huge number of adpositions you could use, I can see arguments for all of the following sentences:

oe mäpun'i zekwämì
oefa mun'i zekwät
oe mäpun'i zekwäìlä
oe mäpun'i zekwäka
oe mäpun'i zekwäkxamlä (although that might be a bit more dramatic than we want) 
oe m(<äp>)un'i zekwämìkam
oe m(<äp>)un'i zekwänemfa
oe mäpun'i zekwäsìn
oe mäpun'i zekwäta
oe(l) mun'i zekwäwä

[Lance R. Casey]

(I here use the topic to save one occurrence of oe, but that's just a stylistic choice)

It doesn't save another occurrence of oe,the detopicalised version would just be "oe mäpun'i zekwämì" with the <äp> requiring you to only state oe once, you're just adding an extra syllable for almost no semantic benefit or useful redundancy.

I was referring to the inflected oeyä, as I would want to define the finger (as in the English). However, upon looking more closely into the issue, it seems context alone will suffice (as in the French/Swedish):

Foti awngal tìyakuk, mì te'lan
(Tsu'tey in the movie)

[kewnya txamew'itan]

ok, that makes sense, I can see where you're coming from now, I thought you were proposing oel oeti mäpun'i zekwämì even though in that same post you showed you knew that that wouldn't work so I was confused.

[omängum fra'uti]

I was referring to the inflected oeyä, as I would want to define the finger (as in the English). However, upon looking more closely into the issue, it seems context alone will suffice (as in the French/Swedish):

Foti awngal tìyakuk, mì te'lan
(Tsu'tey in the movie)

I agree that context should be enough to clarify whose finger it is.  But your quote doesn't really help that because, as I recall, the English translation was "We will strike them in the heart!"  Even if it wasn't, that would be an acceptable translation.

[Kì'eyawn]

Tewti, ma pxeylan, faysäfpìl txantsan lu nìwotx!  I wish i could remember how this sort of thing is handled in Turkish, but i don't remember =\  All of these ideas seem equally plausible to me; i suppose we'll need Karyu Pawl's input—or was something like this already included in the last list of questions sent?

[MIPP]

I was thinking in something like:

Zekwäl lalmu mawnun'i ilä oet

Is that right?  

[Lance R. Casey]

I was thinking in something like:

Zekwäl lalmu mawnun'i ilä oet

Is that right?  

No, for at least three reasons:

• The cases are all wrong. The finger is not performing an action upon something else, and the "I" is not having an action performed upon it.
• There is no passive voice in Na'vi. It can be approximated with the indefinite pronoun fko, but there is no equivalent to the extended "by [agent]" part in English. Also, ìlä (note vowel quality) is spatial.
• Na'vi participles can only be used attributively ("a cut finger"), never predicatively ("the finger is cut").

[MIPP]

I was thinking in something like:

Zekwäl lalmu mawnun'i ilä oet

Is that right?  

No, for at least three reasons:

• The cases are all wrong. The finger is not performing an action upon something else, and the "I" is not having an action performed upon it.
• There is no passive voice in Na'vi. It can be approximated with the indefinite pronoun fko, but there is no equivalent to the extended "by [agent]" part in English. Also, ìlä (note vowel quality) is spatial.
• Na'vi participles can only be used attributively ("a cut finger"), never predicatively ("the finger is cut").

Ok then, i won't do that again