Learn Na'vi > Advanced Grammar

Reflexive or causative in a participle

<< < (2/10) > >>

Tirea Aean:

--- Quote from: Tìtstewan on August 09, 2014, 03:06:36 pm ---"A bathing animal" would be just ioang ayusur
That <äp> version would be  "a self-bathing animal"

--- End quote ---

ioang ayusur would be a washing animal. But what is the animal washing? Clearly not his own self, because there is no äp and that infix is what makes the distinction between wash {something else} and wash {self}.


--- Quote ---"A washed animal" - ioang ayawnur
vs.
"A self-washed animal" - *ioang ayäpawnur
 ???

--- End quote ---

It makes a tiny bit of sense..? :-\


--- Quote ---*Ioang ayeykusur - "a causing to wash animal"
*Ioang ayeykawnur - " a caused to wash animal"
 ???

--- End quote ---

This I'm not so sure. Seems weird.. Maybe mostly because of the verb chosen.


--- Quote ---The only word which could work are those X säpi words:
lew-säpusia ioang - A (self-)covering animal
lew-säpawnia ioang - A (self-)covered animal

But it feels weird for me...otherwise, question for Pawl

--- End quote ---

This word work, but animal is a weird word to use there probably HRH :)

Tìtstewan:
Well, in this case "washing" is more like an adjective not a verb...
Oel tse'a ioangit ayusur
I see a washing animal
It's logical that an animal wash itself, also the point is "a washing animal". To put <äp> in the word would make this "more precise". But I see, yur is a weird example.

Oel tse'a ioangit a yäpur.
I see an animal that wash itself.
vs.
Oel tse'a ioangit a yur lahea ioangit
I see an animal that washes another animal.
^
How do you would create the same meaning with an adjective-like used verb?

Quite the same for <awn>
Oel tse'a ioangit ayawnur
I see a washed animal.

It would be obvious to say "a self-washed animal", because the point is, the animal is washed. :)

Blue Elf:

--- Quote from: Wllìm on August 09, 2014, 02:56:59 pm ---
--- Quote from: Tirea Aean on August 09, 2014, 02:44:52 pm ---So  I have to wonder if *a-<äp><us> / <äp><us>-a is not redundant as we can translate the meaning not the words in a shorter way.

--- End quote ---

True, but then we can say as well that all participles are redundant:
ioang a yur / ioang ayusur
animal that washes / washing animal

ioang a yur is shorter... ???

--- End quote ---
No, this doesn't work as you think.
Ioang a yur is "Animal which washes" (something unspecified thing - object is mising)
Ioang a yäpur is "Animal which washes himself"
Ioang ayusur is "washing animal". Note that this example is not complete sentence (it is just noun + attribute), so we can't decide whether it can replace phrase "Ioang a yur" - context is missing. This example is probably not too good, as "washing animal" is somehow unreal thing ;D
What about this:

Fìfnel ngoayä lu sä'o a yur pxenit - This kind of mud is tool which washes cloth.
Fìfnel ngoayä lu sä'o ayusur a fpi pxen - This kind of mud is washing/cleaning tool for cloth.
Here, in full sentence, these two red usages are interchangeable - both have the same meaning.

I'm still wondering, why people think that if phrase is shorter than another one with the same meaning, it means that long version is wrong or redundant or something. Every construction has its usage and it allow us to say something by different ways. That's why we have synonyms and other "redundant" things ;D

Tìtstewan:
Regarding the <äp> and <us> thing, there is another reason why it would be weird to use it.
As <äp> refers back to the subject, how would this sentence work with <äp>:
Oel tse'a tswusayona ikranit.
I see a flying banshee.
...or,
Oel tse'a yusura Na'vi.
I see a washing Na'vi.

Also, this would case the weird idea to use <äp> in gerunds like *Tìyäpusur lu 'o' - "Self-washing is exciting." hrh

Tirea Aean:
Or would it be that you must say Fwa yäpur lu 'o' ? :-\

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version