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

Started by tsrräfkxätu, April 23, 2010, 06:46:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tsrräfkxätu

The conjunction a has been discussed into oblivion, but the non-/restrictive aspect of the Na'vi relative clause has not been brought up yet, as far as I recall. In English the difference is made apparent in writing (comma use) and also in speech (intonation pattern.) As far as we know, Na'vi doesn't use comma with RCs, so the distinction is probably only made verbally.

What occurred to me is that perhaps the TOP case could also be used (optionally) to set them apart. Consider:


  • Non-restrictive
    Sawtutel a ke lu Eywayä eveng skaya'a Kelutralit.
    The skypeople, who are not Eywa's children, will destroy Hometree.


  • Restrictive
    Sawtuteri a awngaru srung sami slayu hapxìtut 'oloä.
    The skypeople who helped us will become members of the clan.



Kinda makes sense to me. Whatch'all think?
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

kewnya txamew'itan

I think I get what you're saying (whether or not the relative clause applies to an entire group or just a specific subset) but I don't think the topical would solve it.

A clause is restrictive if the noun is being modified is a subset of peers if I understand correctly.

If so, then a topical certainly seems a strange way of specifying although could well be used idiomatically.

I think it could be solved better by specifying in restrictive clauses that you mean this/these or that/those nouns, or possibly with another prenoun although I would rather not have it.

So using your two examples, I would think that it would be:

sawtutel a ke lu eywayä eveng skaya'a kelutralit.

tsaysawtute a awngaru srung soli slayu hapxìtut olo'ä. (sami would probably be better soli and clan is olo' not 'olo)  ;)
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

tsrräfkxätu

What you're saying certainly looks right, but sounds Skypeopleish to my ears. I don't share your feelings on the idiomatic nature of my proposition either, after all what it says it this: "the topic of this sentence is the skypeople that helped us", which logically (and naturally) restricts the comment that follows to the designated subgroup, wouldn't you agree?

As for the -ol- infix, I've started a thread about it, even asked Pawl, and while we have little certainty in this matter, it has pretty much been established that it is NOT the equivalent of the English present perfect; quite on the contrary. With -ol- you'd say: "these guys helped us then [and that action is complete and finished]", with -am- I'm saying: "they helped us then [and might choose do so again, or not]."

Meseylu oeyä.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: tsrräfkxätu on April 23, 2010, 07:25:06 PM
What you're saying certainly looks right, but sounds Skypeopleish to my ears. I don't share your feelings on the idiomatic nature of my proposition either, after all what it says it this: "the topic of this sentence is the skypeople that helped us", which logically (and naturally) restricts the comment that follows to the designated subgroup, wouldn't you agree?

As for the -ol- infix, I've started a thread about it, even asked Pawl, and while we have little certainty in this matter, it has pretty much been established that it is NOT the equivalent of the English present perfect; quite on the contrary. With -ol- you'd say: "these guys helped us then [and that action is complete and finished]", with -am- I'm saying: "they helped us then [and might choose do so again, or not]."

1. The topic doesn't necessarily restrict it because it could just as easily be translated as "topic of this sentence is the skypeople, who helped us," as "the topic of this sentence are the skypeople who helped us". It could easily refer to the entire group.

2. I was using <ol> as if it were the English pretirite which is the closest we have in English to a present perfective. In this context I think it is probably more appropriate as helping is being viewed as a whole whereas, by using the past, you indicate when it happened but allow for the help to be ongoing whereas your English translation does not. That said, <am> certainly isn't wrong, it's just a question of whether or not <ol> is more appropriate.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

Kì'eyawn

Hmm...  IANAL, but i think maybe tsrräfkxätu is on the right track.  What about this:

Tsaysawtuteri a awngaru srung soli fol slayu hapxìtut olo'ä.
Those Skypeople who helped us, they will become part of the clan.

I'm not really clear on whether you can use the TOP marker twice in the same sentence, so maybe you would put it on fo also ("...fori slayu..."), slä fì'u oeru law ke lu.
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

kewnya txamew'itan

If you're using tsay- then then the topical and dummy pronoun are unnecessary.

As for two topics in the same sentence, that would be a no no.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

tsrräfkxätu

Quote from: tìkawngä mungeyu on April 24, 2010, 05:34:15 AM1. The topic doesn't necessarily restrict it because it could just as easily be translated as "topic of this sentence is the skypeople, who helped us," as "the topic of this sentence are the skypeople who helped us". It could easily refer to the entire group.

I could not because the whole first part is the topic. That's my intuition at least, and now I'm going to show you where it comes from.

I think it's very safe to say that the attributive marker a and the RC conj a are one and the same. The latter doesn't attach to a word (in writing) to facilitate text processing. In speech, however, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

tute aean – the blue girl
tute a ean – the girl who is blue

This equivalence is not only phonological, but also semantic. Even in English, which is much more constrained in terms of attributives, you can often use these things interchangeably.

a day old carcass —> a carcass that is a day old
the blue-eyed boy —> the boy who has blue eyes

In Hungarian you can take this to the extreme.

a holnap velem csatába lovagoló harcosok (ATTR) – samsiyu a trray oehu tsamnemfa makto
a harcosok, akik holnap csatába lovagolnak velem (RC) – samsiyu a trray oehu tsamnemfa makto

This detour (hopefully) proves that as far as meaning is concerned the ATTR a and the RC a are equivalent. Perhaps it was totally unnecessary, but I felt it important to establish because of what follows.

Tuteri aean lu ngeyä kxutu. – As for the blue girl, she's your enemy.
Tuteri a eana menari lu ngeyä kxutu. – As for the green-eyed girl, she's your enemy.
Tuteri a nikre alor lu ngeyä kxutu. – As for the girl who has beautiful hair, she's your enemy.

As you can see in the examples above, the topic is not just the single word that receives the marker, but the entire (extended) NP. Per definition, the topic is where you specify what you want to talk about, whereas the comment is the place for providing new or extraneous information relating to it. Thus, it is impossible for a comment – i.e. the surplus information carried by a non-restrictive RC – to be given inside the topic. Q.E:D.

Granted, all this doesn't prove that a non-topical NP is automatically the main clause of a non-rec RC, and I believe it could still go either way – unless it is indeed contrasted idiomatically, like you suggested –, but I'm pretty certain that a topical NP can only head a defining RC.



Is for -ol- vs -am-, I specifically wanted to leave "help" unfinished, as I fully expect allied skypeople to continue cooperating even after the event in question. So, I essentially wanted to use a present perfect-ish sense, which is best conveyed using a non-perfective construction.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: tsrräfkxätu on April 26, 2010, 09:00:40 AM
Tuteri aean lu ngeyä kxutu. – As for the blue girl, she's your enemy.
Tuteri a eana menari lu ngeyä kxutu. – As for the green-eyed girl, she's your enemy.
Tuteri a nikre alor lu ngeyä kxutu. – As for the girl who has beautiful hair, she's your enemy.

As you can see in the examples above, the topic is not just the single word that receives the marker, but the entire (extended) NP. Per definition, the topic is where you specify what you want to talk about, whereas the comment is the place for providing new or extraneous information relating to it. Thus, it is impossible for a comment – i.e. the surplus information carried by a non-restrictive RC – to be given inside the topic. Q.E:D.

Granted, all this doesn't prove that a non-topical NP is automatically the main clause of a non-rec RC, and I believe it could still go either way – unless it is indeed contrasted idiomatically, like you suggested –, but I'm pretty certain that a topical NP can only head a defining RC.



Is for -ol- vs -am-, I specifically wanted to leave "help" unfinished, as I fully expect allied skypeople to continue cooperating even after the event in question. So, I essentially wanted to use a present perfect-ish sense, which is best conveyed using a non-perfective construction.

Thing is, your examples are wrong.

a is a relative clause marker. eana menari or nikre alor are not clauses, there's no verb.

And even if the topic refers to any relative clauses (which I don't disagree with), that still doesn't enforce restriction, you gave the example of the skypeople who helped us becoming part of the clan.

It would be translated in English as either, "{{in reference to the sky people {who helped us,}} they shall become part of the clan}" or "{{in reference to the sky people, {who helped us,}} they shall become part of the clan}" either way, the clause breaks are the same and either way the relative clause is included inside the "in reference to" clause so is included by the topic.

You use an example from Hungarian, I'm going to assume from this that you are Hungarian (ethnically if not by birthplace) as it's not a common second language and I think it's probably colouring your views on the matter which is difficult to avoid.




Ok, I misinterpreted your helped, tslolam.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

omängum fra'uti

In tute a ean it could be seen as a degenerate "lu" clause.  The same way we don't say lu in eywa ngahu, you wouldn't say lu in tute a lu ean.  But they are semantically the same.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

kewnya txamew'itan

In that case, it is possible to make it work, but degenerate lu relative clauses are a likely etymology (if na'vi can be said to have such a thing) of -a- and so the degenerate lu clause you propose is just a normal adjective + attributive.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

tsrräfkxätu

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) link=topic=8485.msg194557#msg194557Thing is, your examples are wrong.

a is a relative clause marker. eana menari or nikre alor are not clauses, there's no verb.

I wasn't aware that we actually knew the rules for the RCs. Could you give me the link where they're explained? Thanks! :D

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) link=topic=8485.msg194557#msg194557You use an example from Hungarian, I'm going to assume from this that you are Hungarian (ethnically if not by birthplace) as it's not a common second language and I think it's probably colouring your views on the matter which is difficult to avoid.


Actually, I was raised bilingually, but I speak 3 IE languages and only 1 non-IE, and I also studied linguistics in English, so I default to English when it comes to grammar. In Hungarian, I'm less aware of how I use the language, in fact, most of the grammar stuff I don't even know the name for. This is why I called something an RC that would probably have been more aptly named a "compound attributive structure" or something. Anyway, just because English speakers interpret the a as an RC conj, doesn't mean that in the inner logic of Na'vi it isn't what I presumed it to be. To me, such a structure seems to follow logically from how adjectives are attributed, and I find it more in line with the logic of Na'vi than your knee-jerk reaction (founded in English) that a clause must have a verb. What if it isn't a clause?

In the examples below, I provided the Hungarian sample sentences solely to demonstrate that the same semantic equivalence exists in other languages as well. The idea doesn't come from Hungarian — it comes from Na'vi. That said, I've noticed that applying Hungarian logic to Na'vi has its merits as there are a surprising number of parallels between the two – certainly more than with English. The dative-genitive construct, the way CC conjunctions are put together, causative is expressed, or subjunctive and imperative work, the completely free, but semantically marked word-order, the case-like enclitic post-positions, the topic-prominence, the lack of a passive, a big part of the phonology, just to name a few.

So you see, going off Hungarian isn't some sort of first language interference in my case, but rather a proven venue of inquiry. Which is not to say that it'll yield anything meaningful in the question at hand, but have you considered that it may be you, who is being misled by your mother tongue's logic?
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: tsrräfkxätu on April 26, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
Actually, I was raised bilingually, but I speak 3 IE languages and only 1 non-IE, and I also studied linguistics in English, so I default to English when it comes to grammar. In Hungarian, I'm less aware of how I use the language, in fact, most of the grammar stuff I don't even know the name for. This is why I called something an RC that would probably have been more aptly named a "compound attributive structure" or something. Anyway, just because English speakers interpret the a as an RC conj, doesn't mean that in the inner logic of Na'vi it isn't what I presumed it to be. To me, such a structure seems to follow logically from how adjectives are attributed, and I find it more in line with the logic of Na'vi than your knee-jerk reaction (founded in English) that a clause must have a verb. What if it isn't a clause?

I tend to think of it the other way round with -a- being a contracted form of a as a RC marker (as I said in my above post).

As for whether a clause can be a clause without a verb, the answer is no, a clause is defined as "A group of two or more words which include a subject and any necessary predicate (the predicate also includes a verb, conjunction, or a preposition) to begin the clause; however, this clause is not considered a sentence for colloquial purposes." on wiktionary and all the other definitions google can provide refer to a predicate which, by definition also requires a verb. Without the verb, an RC becomes an adjective.

As for whether or not a is a true RC marker, we certainly have no evidence to suggest it is not, and, it's current Frommerian translation seems to indicate that it is to me (although that could easily be due to a lack of other words in English).

It seems I was wrong then about Hungarian colouring your views and for that I apologise.

For now, it seems that we've reached an impasse, maybe this is one for Frommer to decide?
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

tsrräfkxätu

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) on April 26, 2010, 02:45:46 PM
As for whether a clause can be a clause without a verb, the answer is no, a clause is defined as "A group of two or more words which include a subject and any necessary predicate (the predicate also includes a verb, conjunction, or a preposition) to begin the clause; however, this clause is not considered a sentence for colloquial purposes." on wiktionary and all the other definitions google can provide refer to a predicate which, by definition also requires a verb. Without the verb, an RC becomes an adjective.

Again, this holds true of English, but other languages – I hate to say this, but among them Hungarian – allow for non-verbal predicates.

A lány szépADJ-Pred.
Ez egy macska-egér játékN-Pred.

But that's beside the point, as we know that Na'vi isn't such a language – save for a few idiomatic examples, like Eywa ngahu. My point is that maybe the a isn't an RC in the English sense of the word, but rather an attributive marker – which we know it to be when it attaches to adjectives – and one which allows complex (syntagmatic or even phrase level) attributives to be created.

In this case the sentence:

Tuteri a nikre alor lu ngeyä kxutu.

Becomes "the beautiful-haired girl is my enemy", which is perfectly well-formed. The English translation would still be rendered with the help of an RC.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

kewnya txamew'itan

Except it doesn't become a perfectly formed sentence meaning that.

It translates as "the girl who beautiful hair is your enemy" which is meaningless without a "has".

Also, I'd imagine that (no actual knowledge here, just a guess) that if you went back far enough you'd find that the non-verbal predicates you mention actually have an elided "is/be" in there.

Either that or Hungarian conjugates adjectives oddly.

Also, you're missing the part of my post when I say that, to me, it makes more sense for -a- to be derived from a than vice versa as we have a few examples of verbal ellision (mostly in imperatives).

But anyway, that's irrelevant, whether it is an attributive or not doesn't affect the fact that the RC can be included in the topical marker and yet still be non-restrictive (as demonstrated when I showed the clause breaks).
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

tsrräfkxätu

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) on April 26, 2010, 03:13:19 PMExcept it doesn't become a perfectly formed sentence meaning that.

It translates as "the girl who beautiful hair is your enemy" which is meaningless without a "has".
You didn't read carefully. :D I said that if we suppose that the a is just an attributive marker in both forms then ... a menari alor becomes just that – an attributive. And just as you don't need a lu in menari alor, you don't need it here either. In this version the a has an abstract function of turning whatever precedes/follows it into a property of the nearest noun.

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) on April 26, 2010, 03:13:19 PMAlso, you're missing the part of my post when I say that, to me, it makes more sense for -a- to be derived from a than vice versa as we have a few examples of verbal ellision (mostly in imperatives).
If that's  the case, and nikre arim has the underlying structure of "the hair that [is] yellow", then I'm wrong. I'll survive. :D

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) on April 26, 2010, 03:13:19 PMAlso, I'd imagine that (no actual knowledge here, just a guess) that if you went back far enough you'd find that the non-verbal predicates you mention actually have an elided "is/be" in there.
Maybe. But it doesn't change the fact that today they are not there. :D Also, if you say "she is pretty", do you declare the existence of a pretty female using the verb "to be", or do you state her pretty quality using the predicative adjective? Honestly, the latter somehow seems more logical to me.

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) on April 26, 2010, 03:13:19 PM
But anyway, that's irrelevant, whether it is an attributive or not doesn't affect the fact that the RC can be included in the topical marker and yet still be non-restrictive (as demonstrated when I showed the clause breaks).
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I'd like to see where this leads – and preferably get a definitive answer. When I started this thread I wasn't aware that the way I think a works might not be the correct one. If I'm wrong that pretty much sinks my theory.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: tsrräfkxätu on April 26, 2010, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) on April 26, 2010, 03:13:19 PMExcept it doesn't become a perfectly formed sentence meaning that.

It translates as "the girl who beautiful hair is your enemy" which is meaningless without a "has".
You didn't read carefully. :D I said that if we suppose that the a is just an attributive marker in both forms then ... a menari alor becomes just that – an attributive. And just as you don't need a lu in menari alor, you don't need it here either. In this version the a has an abstract function of turning whatever precedes/follows it into a property of the nearest noun.

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) on April 26, 2010, 03:13:19 PMAlso, you're missing the part of my post when I say that, to me, it makes more sense for -a- to be derived from a than vice versa as we have a few examples of verbal ellision (mostly in imperatives).
If that's  the case, and nikre arim has the underlying structure of "the hair that [is] yellow", then I'm wrong. I'll survive. :D

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) on April 26, 2010, 03:13:19 PMAlso, I'd imagine that (no actual knowledge here, just a guess) that if you went back far enough you'd find that the non-verbal predicates you mention actually have an elided "is/be" in there.
Maybe. But it doesn't change the fact that today they are not there. :D Also, if you say "she is pretty", do you declare the existence of a pretty female using the verb "to be", or do you state her pretty quality using the predicative adjective? Honestly, the latter somehow seems more logical to me.

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) on April 26, 2010, 03:13:19 PM
But anyway, that's irrelevant, whether it is an attributive or not doesn't affect the fact that the RC can be included in the topical marker and yet still be non-restrictive (as demonstrated when I showed the clause breaks).
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I'd like to see where this leads – and preferably get a definitive answer. When I started this thread I wasn't aware that the way I think a works might not be the correct one. If I'm wrong that pretty much sinks my theory.

1. But "beautiful hair" makes no sense as an attributive on its own. Although, that could be the English talking. It would certainly be clearer with a verb in even if the verb isn't necessary.

3. The second, the predicate is a whole and functions to do the second, if we accept that adjectives can be used predicatively without a verb (as indeed they are in southern US vernaculars) then this still holds (the example that I always think of from Reginald D Hunter (a comedian) is "he dead" which is identical semantically and syntactically to he is dead. Your first option is a flawed parsing of "she is pretty" that would more accurately be from "a pretty girl is/exists".

4. It's certainly an interesting discussion, I just don't see how it alone can sink your theory. Whether a is an attributive or -a- is actually a degenerate RC marker doesn't seem to make much of a difference to how they're actually used to me.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

tsrräfkxätu

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) link=topic=8485.msg195170#msg1951701.But "beautiful hair" makes no sense as an attributive on its own. Although, that could be the English talking. It would certainly be clearer with a verb in even if the verb isn't necessary.

That is the English talking, but since PF is first and foremost an English speaker, he could well be saying the same. :D

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) link=topic=8485.msg195170#msg1951701.
3. The second, the predicate is a whole and functions to do the second, if we accept that adjectives can be used predicatively without a verb (as indeed they are in southern US vernaculars) then this still holds (the example that I always think of from Reginald D Hunter (a comedian) is "he dead" which is identical semantically and syntactically to he is dead. Your first option is a flawed parsing of "she is pretty" that would more accurately be from "a pretty girl is/exists".

This demonstrates nicely how you learned during language acquisition that "he dead" (meaning "he has property: dead") isn't correct, and you need to stick an "is" in there too. :D Try not to think of English as the one universal or underlying vehicle of thought, and you'll start noticing that many things you take for granted in fact represent a specific point of view. Not all difference is due to reduction, elision, or etymological reasons.

Quote from: kemeoauniaea (tìkawngä mungeyu) link=topic=8485.msg195170#msg1951701.
4. It's certainly an interesting discussion, I just don't see how it alone can sink your theory. Whether a is an attributive or -a- is actually a degenerate RC marker doesn't seem to make much of a difference to how they're actually used to me.

Very simple: if a means "who/which" then it is outside of the TOP-marked NP, being a separate clause (and will also need a verb, etc.) If it's an attributive then it comes within the NP, and is fully affected by the TOP.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

kewnya txamew'itan

1. Agreed.

2. I never said "he dead" was wrong, it's just that it implies that adjectives can be used verbally in the general case and, whilst we thought this was the case with some na'vi adjectives when we first got them, we now know that it isn't.

3. That's where we differ. To me, it seems that an RC would be covered by the topic whereas you don't.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

tsrräfkxätu

Maybe this could go into the next unified efforts batch for Pawl? I mean the question of what exactly is that a conj.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

kewnya txamew'itan

I've sent awngeyä karyu an email asking about the restrictive/non-restrictive RCs, with any luck he'll explain it in his answer.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's