the TOP case and restrictive/non-restrictive relative clauses in Na’vi

[Kì'eyawn]

Irayo ma kemeoauniaea (wow, Eywa help the Na'vi with dyslexia).  I'm looking forward to learning his answer.

[Txur’Itan]

There are many ways to use topics that should be asked about in more detail.
Discourse topical use is the one I would like to know more about for Na'vi...

Also... I would like to know from Paul if these constructions are possible.

Ngari ko?

Oeri a taronyu lu.

Ayoengìri tengfya meforu tìng mikun.

(tì)setìri a lu krr ayoengìl yìyom ro <<hell>>.

[tsrräfkxätu]

Fixed them to the best of my knowledge. No guarantees.

Ngari ko? I'm pretty sure this particle is meaningless without a verb. It's a bit like let's/shall we, so you're saying, "as for you, lets (what?)!" It would be interesting though to see whether ko could be used as shall we? in English (with an elided verb.)

Oeri a taronyu lu. With the a it means, "as for me, who is a hunter" – it could be meaningful (if the sentence goes on), but I don't think that's what you wanted to express here.

Ayoengìri tengfya meforu tìng mikun. This is fine, I think. We know that TOP overrides all other cases: here the DAT in ayoeng.

Only nouns (or pronouns substituting them) can receive cases. Set is an adverbial, so it's a no go. However, fìkrr/trr/txonìri would work.

I'd go with:

Fìtxonìri lu krr a ayoengìl yìyom mì kawngtseng!

[omängum fra'uti]

Ko isn't strictly "lets/shall we".  In fact, it can only really be seen like that when used with an imperative.

Take for example, "(Fo) tsun tutet tspivang ko" - That's not saying "Lets be able to kill a person" - it's "They can kill a person". (The "they" part is there contextually from the previous sentence.)

[Txur’Itan]

Fixed them to the best of my knowledge. No guarantees.

Ngari ko? I'm pretty sure this particle is meaningless without a verb. It's a bit like let's/shall we, so you're saying, "as for you, lets (what?)!" It would be interesting though to see whether ko could be used as shall we? in English (with an elided verb.)

Oeri a taronyu lu. With the a it means, "as for me, who is a hunter" – it could be meaningful (if the sentence goes on), but I don't think that's what you wanted to express here.

Ayoengìri tengfya meforu tìng mikun. This is fine, I think. We know that TOP overrides all other cases: here the DAT in ayoeng.

Only nouns (or pronouns substituting them) can receive cases. Set is an adverbial, so it's a no go. However, fìkrr/trr/txonìri would work.

I'd go with:

Fìtxonìri lu krr a ayoengìl yìyom mì kawngtseng!

For: Ngari ko?

I think I would prefer something more authoritative in this case.

Solicit agreement particles are sometimes used in other languages in discourse all by them selves as a word with actual meaning not a post positional particle...  Possibly idiomatically, but that is what I would like to know more about specifically for Na'vi.

For: Oeri a taronyu lu.

You are forgetting discourse as the qualifier.  Continuing an ongoing conversation, would potentially use this structure following a change of Pronoun Topics, thus the subordinate description would need to be redefined.

For: (tì)setìri a lu krr ayoengìl yìyom ro <<hell>>.

I chose my words deliberately, I am not using the direct quote here, because if you see in my bubbles, there is some questioning about adverbial topic use which appears for the particle outside of Na'vi.  And the locative marker seemed more appropriate as I was referring to a distinct location, where we are likely not at currently.

There are many ways to use topics that should be asked about in more detail.
Discourse topical use is the one I would like to know more about for Na'vi...

Also... I would like to know from Paul if these constructions are possible.

Ngari ko?

Oeri a taronyu lu.

Ayoengìri tengfya meforu tìng mikun.

(tì)setìri a lu krr ayoengìl yìyom ro <<hell>>.

Spoiler

IDK if this "Tì" can be dropped... My thinking is that this would be a sentence construction allowing for adverbial topics, that apply to all of the verbs in the subordinate clause possibly after "a", but could also be done using other conjunctions.

Now, is the time we dine in -at- ____ .

Ko isn't strictly "lets/shall we".  In fact, it can only really be seen like that when used with an imperative.

Take for example, "(Fo) tsun tutet tspivang ko" - That's not saying "Lets be able to kill a person" - it's "They can kill a person". (The "they" part is there contextually from the previous sentence.)

I may be missing the Na'vi specifics here, so this is how I am seeing that "KO" particle, it is a separate statement onto itself representing what is said before it to be something to agree or disagree with.

{{I AM A SAUSAGE} KO?}

[tsrräfkxätu]

For: Ngari ko?

I think I would prefer something more authoritative in this case.

Solicit agreement particles are sometimes used in other languages in discourse all by them selves as a word with actual meaning not a post positional particle...  Possibly idiomatically, but that is what I would like to know more about specifically for Na'vi.

For: Oeri a taronyu lu.

You are forgetting discourse as the qualifier.  Continuing an ongoing conversation, would potentially use this structure following a change of Pronoun Topics, thus the subordinate description would need to be redefined.

Well, you didn't make it clear that you were referring to discourse. In it, structures normally deemed ungrammatical (even nonsensical) are used without reservation exactly because the information carried by the non-verbal elements can supply the missing syntax/semantics. Alas, as far as Na'vi pragmatics go, even the most fundamental questions remain unanswered for the moment.

For: (tì)setìri a lu krr ayoengìl yìyom ro <<hell>>.

I chose my words deliberately, I am not using the direct quote here, because if you see in my bubbles, there is some questioning about adverbial topic use which appears for the particle outside of Na'vi.

I did look inside you bubble, and couldn't decide what you wanted to go for. I'm still not 100% certain I understand, but I see some potential issues.

There's a tì–, on which Pawl recently commented that it wasn't infinitely prolific, and reflexive use of it should be avoided. But you put it there, presumably to nominalize the adverbial so that it can receive a case ending. But what do you suppose *tìset would mean? The (here and) now? The present? If so, we already have a word for that, sekrr!

Also, it appears to me that while you have a subordinate clause, there's no main clause. Again, it could work in discourse, I'm just sayin'.

And the locative marker seemed more appropriate as I was referring to a distinct location, where we are likely not at currently.

It was my understanding that ro meant at (locative). I wasn't aware that it was used to express "a place where we're likely not at currently", and locative doesn't normally carry that meaning, so where's this info coming from?

[tsrräfkxätu]

Ko isn't strictly "lets/shall we".  In fact, it can only really be seen like that when used with an imperative.

Take for example, "(Fo) tsun tutet tspivang ko" - That's not saying "Lets be able to kill a person" - it's "They can kill a person". (The "they" part is there contextually from the previous sentence.)

I admit I didn't remember that ko was used in declarative sentences too. In this case, an analogous English "particle" would be m'kay?

(Let's) ride, m'kay? (shall we?)
They can kill a person, m'kay? (do you understand the grave danger I'm talking about?)
I'm a sausage, m'kay? (are you willing to accept/play along, or not?)


In this sense, I can totally see an niche for an idiomatic "nagri ko?"

[Txur’Itan]

For: Ngari ko?

I think I would prefer something more authoritative in this case.

Solicit agreement particles are sometimes used in other languages in discourse all by them selves as a word with actual meaning not a post positional particle...  Possibly idiomatically, but that is what I would like to know more about specifically for Na'vi.

For: Oeri a taronyu lu.

You are forgetting discourse as the qualifier.  Continuing an ongoing conversation, would potentially use this structure following a change of Pronoun Topics, thus the subordinate description would need to be redefined.

Well, you didn't make it clear that you were referring to discourse. In it, structures normally deemed ungrammatical (even nonsensical) are used without reservation exactly because the information carried by the non-verbal elements can supply the missing syntax/semantics. Alas, as far as Na'vi pragmatics go, even the most fundamental questions remain unanswered for the moment.

I suppose I should have placed it at the top of my original post instead of one sentence down?

For: (tì)setìri a lu krr ayoengìl yìyom ro <<hell>>.

I chose my words deliberately, I am not using the direct quote here, because if you see in my bubbles, there is some questioning about adverbial topic use which appears for the particle outside of Na'vi.

I did look inside you bubble, and couldn't decide what you wanted to go for. I'm still not 100% certain I understand, but I see some potential issues.

There's a tì–, on which Pawl recently commented that it wasn't infinitely prolific, and reflexive use of it should be avoided. But you put it there, presumably to nominalize the adverbial so that it can receive a case ending. But what do you suppose *tìset would mean? The (here and) now? The present? If so, we already have a word for that, sekrr!

I used parenthetical to deemphasize tì as I had seen some uses of it on LN that lent to an odd or confusing possibility here or there for me.  I was riding high on the fence in my understanding on whether it belonged there or not.  I can not say that I understand the specifics any better than this, and the examples do not clarify things, so I went from the posted rules so far that I was able to set aside time to read.  I had not personally read that tì could not be used this way, so I will just assume this must be the case that, tì can not be used this way, as you seem to be very certain of it, and no one has challenged it with any other information...

sekrr is a compound of now and time, and while it may not refer to the same word meaning that set conveys, it still is an adverb... and honestly this seems more like a preferential synonym rather than correct versus incorrect case.  Now inherently means "at this time" already, and "now time", being used apart from this doesn't appear to convey additional meaning other than a potential for added emphasis on the time component...  Maybe asking Paul the difference between set and sekrr would be helpful...  Unless someone can help me to identify the nuance already.

Getting back to using adverbs to apply to the rest of of the verbs in the sentence through the use of topical markers, I am thinking more along the lines of Asian languages not English.  However, IANAL, so I assume everything I know is wrong, I just like to know for certain...

Also, it appears to me that while you have a subordinate clause, there's no main clause. Again, it could work in discourse, I'm just sayin'.

And the locative marker seemed more appropriate as I was referring to a distinct location, where we are likely not at currently.

It was my understanding that ro meant at (locative). I wasn't aware that it was used to express "a place where we're likely not at currently", and locative doesn't normally carry that meaning, so where's this info coming from?

Actually what I meant was, in discourse, if you wanted to clarify where else you are/were talking about, if you were possibly discussing a different place earlier in the conversation, you might use ro to help switch focus to another location.

So in rewriting and adding additional examples for my question:

For: setìri a lìyu krr ayoengìl yìyom ro <<hell>>. ~~ Now, soon will be the time we soon will dine in -at- hell.
For: sekrrìri a lu krr ayoengìl yom ro <<hell>>. ~~ Now time, is the time we dine in -at- hell.
For: stumìri a lìyu krr ayoengìl yìyom ro <<Tokyo>>. ~~ Almost, is the time we will dine in -at- Tokyo.
For: trramìri a lamu krr ayoengìl yamom ro <<Kelutral>>. ~~ Yesterday, was the time we dined in -at- Hometree.
For: trrayìri a layu krr ayoengìl yayom ro <<Okalnd>>. ~~ Tomorrow, will be the time we will dine in -at- Oakland.
For: txonamìri a lamu krr ayoengìl yamom ro <<London>>. ~~ Last Night, was the time we dined in -at- London