Txo/Tsakrr

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì ma smuktu.

So, in my limited language-learning experience, one of the things that has come up is the importance of proper verb conjugation in so-called if/then statements.  Examples in English:

If you go, then i will go with you. (the first "go" is subjunctive--not that you'd know in English =P)
If you were going, then i would go with you.
If you had gone, then i would have gone with you.

Now, we know how to translate the first one into Na'vi:

Txo kivä nga, tsakrr kayä ngahu oe.

But what about the others?  I'm still rather shaky on Na'vi verbs, so how would you translate them, ma oeyä smuk?  Also, since Na'vi has more verb options than does English, what other Txo/Tsakrr verb relationships might we expect?  Irayo srungìri ayngeyä.

[wm.annis]

But what about the others? 

We don't know yet.  I'm finalizing a very concise summary of Na'vi grammar which Frommer has made some comments on.  When I mention in that document that we don't yet know how to deal with these ("conditional sentences" in the linguistics lingo), he added the note "Coming.  Stay tuned."  So I suspect he may be working out the details of some of this — different languages handle these in a bewildering multitude of ways.

[Kì'eyawn]

We don't know yet.  I'm finalizing a very concise summary of Na'vi grammar which Frommer has made some comments on.  When I mention in that document that we don't yet know how to deal with these ("conditional sentences" in the linguistics lingo), he added the note "Coming.  Stay tuned."  So I suspect he may be working out the details of some of this — different languages handle these in a bewildering multitude of ways.

Txantsan.  Ha, pasyey oel trrit a sì'eyng pate.  Ngeyä tìkangkemìri aynumeyufpi ngaru irayo seiyi oe nìwotx, ma tsmukan.

[NeotrekkerZ]

Actually I think we can also do the second sentence:

Txo nga kirvä, tsakrr oe kivä ngahu.

I got an email from Frommer a while ago (I posted it somewhere in language updates I think) that you could use iv for the conditional tense.

*Personally I think the coolest thing that could happen for tenses would be to have the "then" function as a (forgive my non linguistical lingo here) solidifier that effectively grounds the "if" clause enabling the "then" clause to be conjugated normally. 

As an example take tiger's third sentence.  Using this method, it would become:  Txo nga kilvä, tsakrr oe kolä ngahu.  (no iv to worry about in the "then" clause)

Ma wm.annis, (I know you're probably grinding your teeth right now, but) do you know of any instances of this type of thing happening?

[wm.annis]

Ma wm.annis, (I know you're probably grinding your teeth right now, but) do you know of any instances of this type of thing happening?

As far as I know we have a grand total of two conditionals in the extant Frommerian corpus, of which one has an apodosis (the "then" part of the "if.. then...") with no verb at all!

 Txo new nga rivey, oehu! Come with me if you want to live..
 Pxan livu txo nì'aw oe ngari tsakrr nga Na'viru yomtìyìng Only if I am worthy of you will you feed the people. (Hunt Song)

So, a future condition has subjunctive in the protasis and future in the apodosis (there's a strong whiff of Latin about this, a language Frommer knows).

[NeotrekkerZ]

Interesting.  I would have expected nivew in the first sentence; and his use of yomtìying in the second is along the lines of my idea.  It may be that repeated uses of the <iv> infix aren't needed.  A little like his note to you in your Coyote translation regarding aspects.

Need more examples...*sigh*

['eylan na'viyä]

Pxan livu txo nì'aw oe ngari tsakrr nga Na'viru yomtìyìng Only if I am worthy of you will you feed the people. (Hunt Song)

Whats also interesting for me:
Why is the "Txo" in the middle of the sentence? Is it just random word order or does it maybe spereate the doubted from the undoubted/context?

[roger]

Pxan livu txo nì'aw oe ngari tsakrr nga Na'viru yomtìyìng Only if I am worthy of you will you feed the people. (Hunt Song)

Whats also interesting for me:
Why is the "Txo" in the middle of the sentence? Is it just random word order or does it maybe spereate the doubted from the undoubted/context?

Yeah, it would appear that "txo" is both 'if' *and* 'then' in this case!

['eylan na'viyä]

Pxan livu txo nì'aw oe ngari tsakrr nga Na'viru yomtìyìng Only if I am worthy of you will you feed the people. (Hunt Song)

Whats also interesting for me:
Why is the "Txo" in the middle of the sentence? Is it just random word order or does it maybe spereate the doubted from the undoubted/context?

Yeah, it would appear that "txo" is both 'if' *and* 'then' in this case!

I said that its in the middle of the sentence. Its true, txo seems to be if+then. I havent realy recognized that (in German we also have only one word for connecting if clauses : "wenn" ; in this case it would have even replaced tsakrr).
Thats an intersting fact for the sentence as a whole.
But besides that i wanted to say that it is also in the middle of the subordinate clause.
i also thought that it seperates
Pxan livu txo nì'aw oe ngari tsakrr nga Na'viru yomtìyìng
maybe linguistically thats nonsense(i dont have any linguistical backgroundknowledge) but i thought that in this case subtle stress is put on Pxan livu as doubted part. I dont know if there is a common language that has similar ways of seperating sentenceparts. I would also think that it is not a strict rule but rather a way to set a focus.
If you already referred to that, i apologize.

Edit:
i just stumbled upon this http://forum.learnnavi.org/advanced-grammar/a-focus-position-sighting/
this could also be a hint into that direction

[Plumps]

I said that its in the middle of the sentence. Its true, txo seems to be if+then. I havent realy recognized that (in German we also have only one word for connecting if clauses : "wenn" ; in this case it would have even replaced tsakrr).
Thats an intersting fact for the sentence as a whole.

That's not entirely true ma 'eylan na'viyä

"wenn" is more common nowadays but we still have "falls" for our conditional if-clauses - that's where it get's tricky for most German learners.
"wenn" (when) is a temporal conjunction ... and now used for introducing a conditional clause
"falls" (if) is for the conditional (and clearer, IMO)

['eylan na'viyä]

Yeah, thats true
If you think logically about the common usage of the language "falls" would be the better choice in many situations.
I just wanted to exemplify the usage of 1 word for the conditional but thanks for telling the complete facts.
German learners are probably confused enough to be tought something incomplete.   

[Na'rìghawnu]

So, a future condition has subjunctive in the protasis and future in the apodosis (there's a strong whiff of Latin about this, a language Frommer knows).

Sorry for answering back, but no, this isn't according to Latin rules. There is no future in combination with conditional clauses in classical Latin, and especially not in combination with a subjunctive (= conjunctive), no way. And it's also not according to Latin to have two different forms in the two predicates (in the subordinate and the main clause).

The conditional clauses in Latin are as follows:

1. Realis (= logical "if-then"-clause, like "if it's raining, the ground get's wet"):
protasis: indicative, apodosis: indicative

2. Potentialis (the "if"-condition could be true ... it's not sure, but possible):
protasis: present conjunctive (sometimes: perfect conjunct.), apodosis: present conjunctive (sometimes: perf. conj.)

3. Irrealis (the "if"-condition is just fictive):
3.a. Irrealis of the Present: protasis: imperfect conjunctive, apodosis: imperfect conjunctive
3.b. Irrealis of the Past: protasis: plusquamperfect conjunctive, adoposis: plusquamperfect conjunctive

As you see: There is no future (except possible - but unusual - in the case of the Realis, but then both predicates are future indicative). Besides that, you see, that in Latin the predicates of the conditional clause and it's main clause usually (I'd say: 98 %) share exactly the same form. It's really unusual (and therefore considered "wrong") to have e. g. a conjunctive in the conditional clause and an indicative in the main clause (viceverca it is 100 % impossible). Normally even if the main clause is really "real" ... in case of a Potentialis or Irrealis it also get's the conjunctive (without any logical reason, just because it was seen as more "correct"/"nice" to have the same form in both parts); this phenomenon is called "attractio modi" = the predicate of the one part urges the predicate of the other part to be in the same form.

[wm.annis]

Sorry for answering back, but no, this isn't according to Latin rules.

D'oh!  Greek rules, then. 

My Latin is terrible, and I tend to impose Greek grammar on it when venture into Latin waters.

[Kì'eyawn]

Sorry for answering back, but no, this isn't according to Latin rules.

D'oh!  Greek rules, then. 

My Latin is terrible, and I tend to impose Greek grammar on it when venture into Latin waters.

You may have been wrong about Latin, ma 'eylan (i wouldn't know), but i think this is the way these phrases are handled in French--n'est-ce pas, mes francophones?

[NeotrekkerZ]

Apologies in advance for this slight tangent.  I had six quarters of German in college and never once was this

"falls" (if) is for the conditional (and clearer, IMO)

mentioned to me.  So I learn a little more German today (in addition to Na'vi of course),

wenn ich mit dir gehe   is when I go with you, but
falls ich mit dir ginge    is if I were going with you.

Ist das richtig?

[Plumps]

Apologies in advance for this slight tangent.  I had six quarters of German in college and never once was this

"falls" (if) is for the conditional (and clearer, IMO)

mentioned to me.  So I learn a little more German today (in addition to Na'vi of course),

wenn ich mit dir gehe   is when I go with you, but
falls ich mit dir ginge    is if I were going with you.

Ist das richtig?

You got it

As I said it's a form to distinguish conditional (and realis from irrealis statements) that is unfortunately less and less in use...

[NeotrekkerZ]

That is unfortunate.  It's very handy.  I looked in my German grammar book just now and they make no mention of it being used in that way.  Sehr traurig.

Tangent closed.