srese'a, and further insight into adpositions

Started by Kì'eyawn, March 11, 2010, 02:18:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kì'eyawn

So, thanks to Taronyu's update to his dictionary, i see our set of adpositions has been greatly fleshed-out.  Now, when i first encountered the verb srese'a (to prophesy, to see the future), i felt like it probably was derived in some way from tse'a, but couldn't figure out how that could be.  But now that we have the adposition sre+ (before), i have my answer.

But how cool is that?!  We now have an example of an adposition being used to form a new verb.  Do we have other examples of this that i failed to notice?  I mean, we've seen verbs derived from noun-verb combos (like ralpeng) and even verb-verb combos (like yomtìng), but have we seen an adposition in a verb before?
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

NeotrekkerZ

#1
Not that I know of, but how that word is constructed is very cool.  I also noticed now we have the interjection ne kllte get down coming from the adverb nekll below as well as awstengyem to join coming from 'awsìteng together + yem to put.
Rìk oe lu hufwemì, nìn fya'ot a oe tswayon!

omängum fra'uti

ne kllte is actually from kllte (ground) not nekll.  But nekll is certainly related.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

NeotrekkerZ

Quite true, my enthusiasm got the better of me.
Rìk oe lu hufwemì, nìn fya'ot a oe tswayon!

Kì'eyawn

Quote from: NeotrekkerZ on March 11, 2010, 05:32:49 PM
...as well as awstengyem to join coming from 'awsìteng together + yem to put.

Oh, so that's what that is.  Don't i feel silly for not noticing that...  :P

Quote
Quite true, my enthusiasm got the better of me.

I strongly encourage enthusiasm--how else would we have come this far?
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

Plumps

Quote from: tigermind on March 11, 2010, 06:31:07 PM
Quote from: NeotrekkerZ on March 11, 2010, 05:32:49 PM
...as well as awstengyem to join coming from 'awsìteng together + yem to put.

Oh, so that's what that is.  Don't i feel silly for not noticing that...  :P

I didn't see that either...
What I'm still bothered with is the different infix positions in
k.llk.ä
k.llkx.em
but
kllfr.o'
I thought with combined verbs the infixes would go only into the main verb...

omängum fra'uti

That's a good point...  If all those words are derivations, it would make sense that the infix would go only in the second part.  Certainly a strong point could be made for kllkä being a derivation, and all the rest seem to be somehow related....  (Go to ground, get from ground, be on ground, etc)

Except kllfro'...  What does being responsible have to do with the ground?  MAYBE in a metaphorical sense, but none of the rest are metaphorical...  However, the source of the infix position there I imagine is the ASG, which lists the word as kllfrivo' as "Be responsible", presumably being inflected with a second position infix in the second syllable.  So that is the only word that has an attested infix position of the set.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

NeotrekkerZ

Quotekllfr.o'
I thought with combined verbs the infixes would go only into the main verb...

Maybe this just hasn't been updated yet in Taronyu's dictionary?  It might be an error.  If it's not my best guess, other than omängum's metaphorical suggestion is that kll means centered/rooted/fixed in and fro' comes from frapo in which case kllfro' is something like "pillar for everyone," or "rooted for all."  Obviously there's a lot of conjecture here.  It would be good to ask.
Rìk oe lu hufwemì, nìn fya'ot a oe tswayon!

Plumps

I thought the list of verbs was edited in its entirety with the last update and the list from Frommer. I thought the infix positions were marked in there...
We're all humans and make mistakes ... it's definitely something we should have a look into.

omängum fra'uti

As far as I know, the list of words from Frommer includes syllabic stresses, but not infix positions.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Plumps

I see ... okay, that complicates things ;)
Another point to put on the list to ask him...

roger

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on March 11, 2010, 07:51:17 PM
As far as I know, the list of words from Frommer includes syllabic stresses, but not infix positions.

Correct. It does not mark infix position or, except in a few cases, transitivity.

wm.annis

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on March 11, 2010, 07:51:17 PM
As far as I know, the list of words from Frommer includes syllabic stresses, but not infix positions.

The PDF I will be sending him with our word requests starts off with a plea to make it clear to us when verbs are compounds, so we can get infixes to the correct homes.

Taronyu