Part of Sp. :: English | Na'vi
Verb :: He is hunting. | Poan teraron.
Noun :: Hunting is bad. | Tìtaron kawng lu. <---This I'm not sure on, might be <us>, since tìtaron = "a hunt"
Adjective :: A hunting man | Tusaron tutean. <---This is based on Taronyu's example, also not sure about this.
Apologies if I'm repeating anyone.
AFAIK
tìtaron kawng lu would mean "the hunt was bad". It is possible that "hunting is bad" (a very un-Na'vi opinion) would use the participle, ??tusaron kawng lu", as you suggest.
As noted above, it would presumably be
tusarona tutean. But my question is, how does this differ from
tarona tutean? After all, "a hunting person" means approximately the same thing as "a person who hunts"; the difference is one of of aspect, which in the case of Na'vi could be expressed with an aspectual infix, so what's the point of the participle if not for things like "hunting is bad"? For that matter, what's the diff between
kerusey, which we have attested, and
kerey (kereya tute) ? Unless
kerusey is a noun, "the dead"?
Are there any languages you know of which allow attributive verbs and also have participles?
Also, English has two participles, active/progressive and passive/perfect. We've (? or at least I've) only seen the Na'vi participle on intransitive verbs. How do we know how transitivity might affect it?
