Questions about modal verbs

[Carborundum]

Disclaimer: IANAL. Everything I know about grammar I have read on Wikipedia over last three months. I may very well be in over my head here.

I have been thinking about modal verbs. "Want" is AFAIK never modal in English, but is always in Na'vi. "Can" is always modal in both languages. "Will" is always modal in English, but does not exist in Na'vi, where it is instead handled by tense and aspect. "Need" can be modal in English (need I really do this now?), but is not always (you need to do this now). What about Na'vi? Is "need" modal there, and if so, is it always? How does one determine whether a verb is modal in Na'vi?

Edit: After some more thinking, I'm pretty convinced "need" is indeed modal in Na'vi. I arrived at this conclusion because "need" will out of necessity follow the same grammatical patterns as "want" and "can". For example:
oe tsun t<iv>aron
oe new t<iv>aron
oe kin t<iv>aron
At least, I think it will look like that. It certainly isn't *oe kin taron.
Perhaps all auxiliary verbs are also modal in Na'vi?
*Prepares for onslaught from actual linguists*

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I believe that somewhere there was an email from Frommer that said that tsun, kin, new and zene are modal. If they were only modal in some cases I imagine he'd have mentioned it then.

[wm.annis]

I believe that somewhere there was an email from Frommer that said that tsun, kin, new and zene are modal. If they were only modal in some cases I imagine he'd have mentioned it then.

I have used new as a non-modal, transitive verb in email to Frommer without correction from him, so that may be ok.

If you can remember where you saw kin included in the list of modals, that'd be great.

[Hawnuyu atxen]

I think it is correct... you can use "want" as "want something", not just "want to do something" (second would be a modal, first is just a (transitive as you said) verb).

[Carborundum]

On the canon page of wiki.learnnavi.org there is an email stating that tsun, new and zene are modal. No mention of kin, however.

Jan 20

Why is there no overt SBRD w modals?

   That's how I've been handling want, can, and must: via a simple, shorter structure, where the subject in the main clause is considered intransitive, and there's no overt subject in the subordinate clause if they're identical:

   Oe new kivä. 'I want to go.'
   Oe tsun kivä. 'I can go.'
   Oe zene kivä. 'I must go.'
   (Different word orders are possible in all of these, of course: Zene oe kivä, etc.)

   So in these cases, the -iv- form of the verb functions somewhat like an infinitive. (But never like a gerund!)

   You can also use the longer form:

   Oel new futa (oe) kivä.

   But that's less common.

I think it is correct... you can use "want" as "want something", not just "want to do something" (second would be a modal, first is just a (transitive as you said) verb).

That's true. If kin is indeed modal it would presumably behave like that too.

[omängum fra'uti]

How is "Want" never modal in English?  It certainly doesn't have to be (I want a hot dog) but it very much is modal when used as an auxiliary verb (I want to see Avatar again).  This mirrors its use in Na'vi quite nicely.

For need, it's entirely possible it is NOT a modal verb.  Sure, the English verb "Need" can sometimes be modal, but Na'vi is not just English words translated directly and given new syntax.  Some of the words have different uses and meanings than the English counterparts.  And really, how is "Need to X" different than "Must X"?  The only difference I can possibly think of is that "need to" implies some future action, moreso than must (I could be wrong there, that's just my thinking) but Na'vi can express that just fine using zene and infixes.  So perhaps "kin" primarily refers to more concrete needs?

[Carborundum]

"Must" is a lot stronger than "need". I don't think that difference can be bridged with any of the infixes we have today.

[Hawnuyu atxen]

Ma omängum fra'uti!
I agree with you (as you said what i thought about want). Need in this context (at least for me) is the same as must... i think they can be modals, but not necessaryly are.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I believe that somewhere there was an email from Frommer that said that tsun, kin, new and zene are modal. If they were only modal in some cases I imagine he'd have mentioned it then.

I have used new as a non-modal, transitive verb in email to Frommer without correction from him, so that may be ok.

If you can remember where you saw kin included in the list of modals, that'd be great.

Sorry, I think the kin was my imagination. I'm not sure where it came from. Editing.

I didn't think of the obvious transitive use of new (hence it having the long form when the others don't I presume).

[Carborundum]

How is "Want" never modal in English?  It certainly doesn't have to be (I want a hot dog) but it very much is modal when used as an auxiliary verb (I want to see Avatar again).

I don't think "want" is a modal in your second example either. Both sentences are on the form "I want X", where "want" is just a regular transitive verb. In Na'vi we could express it in two ways

(1) Oe new kivame Uniltìrantokx nìmun
(2) Oel new futa (oel) kivame Uniltìrantokxìt nìmun

Unless I'm mistaken, "new" is not modal in (2). (2) also corresponds more closely to the English translation. It's my guess that "kin" works this way too.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

The problem with English modals is that they use the to infinitive form which is exactly the same as one of the abstract noun forms.

This is where the confusion lies.

By your argument, none of the English ones are modal (if taken as "to be able to" and "to have to" not can and must).

[Carborundum]

You have a point. But reversibly, by omängum fra'uti's argument all auxiliary verbs are also modal in English. So, um, what does a modal make, I wonder?

[omängum fra'uti]

"Must" is a lot stronger than "need". I don't think that difference can be bridged with any of the infixes we have today.

So "I need to eat" isn't as strong as "I must eat"?

This actually mirrors a very similar discussion I had on IRC just now, only there it was "must" vs "have to", again stating that "must" is stronger than "have to".  Only, in that case we only have one of the words in Na'vi, so it was clearly arguing English semantics and not Na'vi.

But I think even "must" vs "need" is arguing English semantics.  My point is that "kin" in Na'vi doesn't necessarily exactly equal "need" in English.  It's possible "zene" involves a whole range of modality, and subtleties are dealt with by other means.  For example, has anyone thought about what "zasyene" might mean?  (Hypothetically, I'm not even 100% sure myself what that would mean.)

[kewnya txamew'itan]

This actually mirrors a very similar discussion I had on IRC just now, only there it was "must" vs "have to", again stating that "must" is stronger than "have to".  Only, in that case we only have one of the words in Na'vi, so it was clearly arguing English semantics and not Na'vi.

I'd argue that they're just as strong as each other (must and have to) but I'd say need to was stronger still. But then that might be the Spanish talking (as far as I know, there is no difference in strength between hay que, deber que and tener que which all mean must/have to whilst necesitar is stronger).

[omängum fra'uti]

You have a point. But reversibly, by omängum fra'uti's argument all auxiliary verbs are also modal in English. So, um, what does a modal make, I wonder?

According to wikipedia, modals are expressions broadly associated with notions of possibility or necessity.  Modal verbs are a subset of that which is done through auxiliary verbs.  At that point Wikipedia breaks down with some split personality and simultaneously says that "want", "wish", "hope", and "like" are English modal verbs, and then in the next section says that they aren't...  Hurray for truthiness!

[Carborundum]

Yeah, I've been reading that article as well. It is maddeningly unhelpful.
I'm gonna go ahead and just post the sentence I'm working on that sparked this whole train of thought:

"I need help to move him here"

"I need help" is trivial; oel kin srungìt
"I need to move him here" is also pretty simple; oe kin 'ivärìp po fitsengne (assuming kin modal)
Or if you prefer: oe zene 'ivärìp po fitsengne (all right, I concede, must and need are very similar)
I run into trouble when I try to put the whole thing together though. In order to use zene, I would have to say "I must have help to move him here".

Using kin: oel kin futa srung 'ivärìp po fitsengne
I'm not happy with the way srung fits into this sentence. I looks... naked.
Using zene: oeru zene livu srung fte tsun 'ivärìp po fitsengne
...Ugh. I dunno about that one. My thinking is to-me there must be help so-that (I) can move him here. But even if it is correct (which I strongly doubt) it's far to long and convoluted. I want something more light-weight.

[omängum fra'uti]

Oel srungit kin fte tsivun pot reykivikx (ne?) fìtsenge
I need help so that I can move him here

Edit: Hmm on second thought I'm not sure if that says the same thing...  That could be taken as "I need help finishing this so I can move him here", not necessarily "I need help with moving him here."  Perhaps instead...
Oel srungit kin furia pot reykikx fìtsenge

[Carborundum]

Oel srungit kin furia pot reykikx fìtsenge

See, that's what I wanted to do with oel kin futa srung 'ivärìp poti fitsengne, but I couldn't find a compelling argument for why it'd be OK to move srung outside the futa-clause. That'd make it oel kin srungit fwa 'ivärìp poti fitsengne, which also seems wrong. But perhaps with furia it'll work. I'm still not comfortable with the topical, to be honest. I wish we had more canon examples of it.

[omängum fra'uti]

Well your fwa usage is certainly wrong, because fwa is only for intransitive verbs.  It's literally "fì'u a" - and since you can't say "Oel srungit kin fì'u" it isn't correct.

The truth is I'm not quite sure how to say it without the topic.

[roger]

Oel kin srungit a pot reykikx fìtsenge