Mesäfpìl sì 'uo alahe (Two ideas and something else)

[Kemaweyan]

Kaltxì, ma smuktu.

I have two ideas or questions about Na'vi language. I would like discuss about this.

1. Oe fìtsenge tok.

Yes, I know the verb "tok" is transitive. But seems to me this sentence also is possible. Now I'll explain my thought. Verb "tok" is transitive ant the place is its object. And we know the verb "omum" is transitive too, but we can speak "Oe omum" without the object. And all transitive verbs can be used without objects. In this case we can say just "Oe tok" (in some context).

Now about the word "fìtsenge". As we know, it is not only the noun which means "this place" and can be changed with cases like "fìtsenget". It also means "here" and is adverb. Therefore we can say "Oe tok" + adverb, right? Then "Oe fìtsenge tok" also is correct and means "I am here" ("Oel fìtsenget tok" = "I am at this place").

Do you agree with my idea?

2. Ambiguity with "slu".

But perhaps it just seems to me. I say about the thing when all parts of sentence aren't pronouns and names. For example: Taronyu slolu tsamsiyu. If it would be "Oe slolu tsamsiyu", then is clear that I → warrior (would be enough stupid warrior → I). But in sentence "Taronyu slolu tsamsiyu" are two variants: taronyu → tsamsiyu and tsamsiyu → taronyu. It is only if with "slu" we can use free word order. If first noun always is subject only, then here is no ambiguity, of course. But I did not see the rule about it...

3. Conjunction "to" and non-noun words.

It seems like language update, but it isn't official. Then I don't want put it in forum "Language updates". And also I don't know, perhaps you already know this "rule"

This idea came to me when I've learned from Karyu's blog that "to" is conjunction, not adposition. As we know, we can use "to" with nouns (pronouns) and adjectives: Po to oe lu koak (example from Pawl's blog). But at same day I've received the letter from Pawl, where he use "to" with nouns + verb and adverb (not adjective), for example: Po plltxe to nga (plltxe) nìltsan. Here with "to" compares not nouns, compares actions. And I think that it is possible, because "to" is conj. (adp. may stand only with nouns or pronouns).

If I'm right, we may feel free to use this construction However I want learn your thoughts about it. Probably it seems obvious, but I've never seen using "to" with adverbs earlier.

Oeru txoa livu oeyä lì'fyari le'Ìnglìsì, oel nì'aw ftia tsat Nìngay fì'u lu sìltsana tskxekeng oeru... Kìyevame, ma smuktu. Eywa ayngahu

[wm.annis]

1. Oe fìtsenge tok.

I really think we should avoid this.  This question of tok keeps coming up.  There was some email between Frommer and several people in April about it, and two of the example sentences from Frommer were:

Pesenti (OR pesenget OR tsengpet) ngal tok? Where are you?
Oel tok fìtsenget. I'm here.

Good Na'vi style seems to require transitive tok with these -tseng words.

2. Ambiguity with "slu".

I have a hard time imagining a natural conversation or story where this would really be ambiguous.  We wouldn't normally just walk up to someone and say, "a warrior becomes a hunter."  There would be some context or background information that would lead you to say that, which would also make it pretty clear who the subject is.

[Kemaweyan]

I really think we should avoid this.  This question of tok keeps coming up.  There was some email between Frommer and several people in April about it, and two of the example sentences from Frommer were:

Pesenti (OR pesenget OR tsengpet) ngal tok? Where are you?
Oel tok fìtsenget. I'm here.

Good Na'vi style seems to require transitive tok with these -tseng words.

But nevertheless it can be grammaticaly correct? I'm not going to use it, but it is interesting to me..

I have a hard time imagining a natural conversation or story where this would really be ambiguous.  We wouldn't normally just walk up to someone and say, "a warrior becomes a hunter."  There would be some context or background information that would lead you to say that, which would also make it pretty clear who the subject is.

Then is there free word order? From context we usually can understand meaning, I know. Actually I raised this issue so that learn about it. We mostly use the subject first, but I didn't know that can we use that as second or no... Thank you

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì, ma Kemaweyan.

Ngari lu oeru tìpawm.  Filì'fyavi, san Po plltxe to nga (plltxe) nìltsan sìk, tsat ke tsole'a oel srekrr.  Tsaw zola'u ta 'upxare a Karyu Pawlta srak?

[Kemaweyan]

Kehe. Tsat oel ngolop fpi sìkenong Ta Karyu lamu lahea lì'fyavi tengkorenhu. Tam.. oe wìyìntxu tsat: Ke lu kawtu a lì'fyat awngeyä to nga sar nìltsan.

[Kì'eyawn]

Kehe. Tsat oel ngolop fpi sìkenong Ta Karyu lamu lahea lì'fyavi tengkorenhu. Tam.. oe wìyìntxu tsat: Ke lu kawtu a lì'fyat awngeyä to nga sar nìltsan.

Tam.  Fwa ngal fìtìkenongit tìng oeti ngaru irayo seiyi oe, ma Kemaweyan.  Tsaw srung seiyi oeru fte oe tsun fìkorenit tslivam.  Ulte mllte oe Karyu Pawlhu.  Ngal lì'fyati leNa'vi plltxeie nìltsan nìtxan.

Edit:  D'oh.  of all the things, i keep mixing up my pronouns.  Hence why Kemaweyan is the tsulfätu and i am the skxawng.

[Plumps]

2. Ambiguity with "slu".

But perhaps it just seems to me. I say about the thing when all parts of sentence aren't pronouns and names. For example: Taronyu slolu tsamsiyu. If it would be "Oe slolu tsamsiyu", then is clear that I → warrior (would be enough stupid warrior → I). But in sentence "Taronyu slolu tsamsiyu" are two variants: taronyu → tsamsiyu and tsamsiyu → taronyu. It is only if with "slu" we can use free word order. If first noun always is subject only, then here is no ambiguity, of course. But I did not see the rule about it...

2. Ambiguity with "slu".

I have a hard time imagining a natural conversation or story where this would really be ambiguous.  We wouldn't normally just walk up to someone and say, "a warrior becomes a hunter."  There would be some context or background information that would lead you to say that, which would also make it pretty clear who the subject is.

Tirea and I have been thinking about that as well the other day ... and I think we didn't take William's thought into consideration as well – who has a good point. If we learned somthing of the latest post by K. Pawl then that ambiguity often appears in small examples, taken out of context.
I would have argued otherwise that ›becoming‹ a thing or a state is in fact changing its nature or state of being, which would count for me (along the line with the explanation why tok is transitive) as a logical continuation of that thought. But we have examples from the film where slu is intransitive...

[wm.annis]

I would have argued otherwise that ›becoming‹ a thing or a state is in fact changing its nature or state of being, which would count for me (along the line with the explanation why tok is transitive) as a logical continuation of that thought. But we have examples from the film where slu is intransitive...

Ah, but the source of the change in state matters.  Only if that change is external to the patient will you normally get a transitive verb.  Compare this to reflexive verbs, which are considered intransitive:

  oel yarmur oeyä ikranit I was washing my ikran
  oe yäpur I wash (myself)

[wm.annis]

But nevertheless it can be grammaticaly correct? I'm not going to use it, but it is interesting to me..

Well, the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically correct, but it still doesn't mean anything.  So your intransitive use of tok might be grammatical (we don't know yet from Frommer), it's not clear to me that it means anything useful.

Then is there free word order? From context we usually can understand meaning, I know. Actually I raised this issue so that learn about it. We mostly use the subject first, but I didn't know that can we use that as second or no... Thank you

For now, I'm guessing the word order is still free.  At some point Frommer may want to create a way for us to disambiguate these examples with slu (and lu has the same problem potentially), to have some way to distinguish the predicate.  It might be word order, but it might be something else.

[Kemaweyan]

Well, the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically correct, but it still doesn't mean anything.  So your intransitive use of tok might be grammatical (we don't know yet from Frommer), it's not clear to me that it means anything useful.

The same issue is with "oe omum". Here can be meaning only with context:

- Pawlìl ngolop pìlokit teri lì'fya leNa'vi.
- Oe omum. (about which you've said now)

I think with "oe tok" can be the same. I thought if "fìtsenge" is not only noun, but also the adverb, we can use it with intransitive verbs as place where the action occurs. However with "tok" it seems strange for Na'vi, I agree.

For now, I'm guessing the word order is still free.  At some point Frommer may want to create a way for us to disambiguate these examples with slu (and lu has the same problem potentially), to have some way to distinguish the predicate.  It might be word order, but it might be something else.

With "lu" it's little different. "Lu" shows us the equality of two things (if they are nouns or pronouns), so is no difference of A = B or B = A. But with "slu" A → B not the same as B → A.

In other languages which I know this ambiguity is impossible. In english is strict word order and subject always is first (of these two words A and B). In russian we use different cases for A and B (like -l and -ti, but others, and that verb is not transitive), however word order is free. But in Na'vi we must use one case for both words...

Tam.  Fwa ngal fìtìkenongit tìng oeti ngaru irayo seiyi oe, ma Kemaweyan.  Tsaw srung seiyi ngaru fte nga tsun fìkorenit tslivam.  Ulte mllte oe Karyu Pawlhu.  Ngal lì'fyati leNa'vi plltxeie nìltsan nìtxan.

Irayo nìtxan, ma tsmuke

[wm.annis]

Apart from the very small vocabulary, I think the biggest problem for Na'vi currently is the lack of clear statements about how Na'vi verb transitivity works.  Right now, we seem to have some contradictions in our data.

The same issue is with "oe omum". Here can be meaning only with context:

- Pawlìl ngolop pìlokit teri lì'fya leNa'vi.
- Oe omum. (about which you've said now)

Right now, I consider this an error.  Yes, we have to confront the NYT article sound files (which we might be mishearing), but using oe omum here directly contradicts other statements made by Frommer about using the subjective with a verb that is usually considered transitive.  See the Wikibooks page http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Na'vi/Discourse for a discussion of this.  I just realized, the person who got the email from Frommer about this hasn't been on LN.org in quite a while.  Perhaps we can ask Frommer about this again, or ask him politely to make a blog post about it.  I got a copy via IM from Frommer's email, which I doubt is confidential, since the Wikibooks author uses Frommer's examples —

The question you've asked about ambitransitivity was a vexing one for me, and I definitely spent some time thinking about it. I finally decided that if there's no overt object present in the main clause—that is, if the subject is talking about engaging in a general activity without reference to a specific object—then the verb would be intransitive. So if Neytiri is simply saying that she hunts, then she'd say "oe taron," but if she hunted a direhorse, it would be "Oel tolaron pa'lit." If the specific object is unstated but implied in the general discourse, I think the verb should be considered transitive as well. So "I hunt (them) too" would be "Taron oel kop."

The second sentence above — taron oel kop, with an unexpressed direct object, and thus taking transitive marking in the noun — is exactly parallel to your oe omum example.  I cannot see how both of these can be correct at the same time.

[Kemaweyan]

I see nothing strange. I think all transitive verbs can be used without patient and in that case they are used with rules for intransitive verbs. So these examples seems to me completely correct:

oe omum
oe tslolam
oe tse'a

and others. In example "taron oel kop" we use "oel" because full sentence is "taron oel pa'lit kop", but word "pa'lit" is missed, because it's clear from context. We can't say "oel taron", but if it is answer for previous phrase ("oel taron pa'lit" - "oel taron kop"), then we can use "oel" without patient. But probably we can do it only in spoken language.

[Muzer]

The difference is that when you have an IMPLIED object - eg in "oel omum" the implied object would be "that thing you were just talking about" - you keep the subject in the ergative, but when there is no possible way you could get an object in there, implied or otherwise, you use the nominative* (no ending).


*That's the terminology from Na'vi in a Nutshell (ergative = with ending; nominative = without) and I'm quite wary that it might be wrong.

[wm.annis]

I see nothing strange. I think all transitive verbs can be used without patient and in that case they are used with rules for intransitive verbs.

Sure, but when someone tells you something, and you say, "I know," you are not making a statement about your general abilities, you're saying, "I know the information you have just told me."

A: Txewì set hahaw Txewì is sleeping now.
B: Oel omum [futa po set hahaw] I know [that he is sleeping now].

Perhaps there is a context where oe omum is grammatically and pragmatically correct.  But I don't think that's the case in the example we have from above.

[Kemaweyan]

Actually I agree it is logical. And I would prefer to use of ergative/accusative with transitive verbs even if there is not second noun (kame ngat; oel omum etc.). But I always known transitive verbs can be intransitive if there is no patient. If it isn't rule, I'll always use ergative/accusative with transitive verbs

And in this case verb "plltxe" must be intransitive, because we know "Oe plltxe nìNa'vi" is correct. Then we can't say "Oel plltxe aylì'ut" or "Pol poltxe futa ...".

[NeotrekkerZ]

Is pesenti one special alternative form for a question word?  Or do the others have them as well?

[Kemaweyan]

Ngaytxoa, ke tlolam oel lì'ut a san pesenti sìk. Ke omum oel tsat...

Lolu oer mipa lì'fyavi: Oe fpolìl teri tsaw - I've thought about it. Peut ngal fpìl fì'uteri?

M.'U. Oeru txoa livu.. ke new oe set rapliveng nì'Ìnglìsì

[Plumps]

Fpìl oel futa Neo namew pivlltxe san pesengti sìk (pe+tseng-ti), kefyak? Tìkenong: Pesengti tukrul tok? – »Where is my speer?«

Lu 'uo a new awnga pivawm K. Pawlur mì haya 'upxare ta »Combining Our Efforts II«, oel fpìl.
Fpìl oel futa fìfya'o tsunslu hu fralì'u tìpawmä...

[Kemaweyan]

Fpìl oel futa Neo namew pivlltxe san pesengti sìk (pe+tseng-ti), kefyak? Tìkenong: Pesengti tukrul tok? – »Where is my speer?«

Fì'uteri fpamìl oe(l) (nìmun terätxaw ne tsatìpawm ). Slä fpìl oel futa zene livu fìlì'umì "-it", kefyak?

Lu 'uo a new awnga pivawm K. Pawlur mì haya 'upxare ta »Combining Our Efforts II«, oel fpìl.
Fpìl oel futa fìfya'o tsunslu hu fralì'u tìpawmä...

Fì'ut ngal poleng teri lì'u san pesengti sìk? Pelun awnga zene pivawm Pawlur? Fì'uri lu law nìwotx... Srane, tsun fko pivawm san Pesengit tukrul oeyä tok? sìk.

[Plumps]

Srane, lam oer nìteng fwa tsaw lu letsunslu sì law nìngay...

Slä fpìl oel futa zene livu fìlì'umì "-it", kefyak?

Nìlaw, mesìngop lu letsunslu, pesengti fu pesengit ... ulte keng pesenget
Tìsarìri K. Pawlä tìng nari teri san« awngal yom fkxenti lerìk nìwotx »sìk fìtsenge