Author Topic: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)  (Read 1594 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AuLekye'ung

  • Uniltìranyu
  • **
  • Posts: 181
  • Karma: 9
  • Insane Drum
Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« on: February 16, 2010, 09:11:05 pm »
How does except function in Na'vi?  Can someone give me an example sentence using it?

Does it work like this:

Oel yolom nìwotx ngayä ikranit, mungrr-kxetse.

Or does it have another definition of "except", because:

Oel yolom stum nìwotx ngayä ikranit, slä keketse.

Means the same thing, although it is more wordy.  (I'm assuming ke- causes lenition?)
Txo *fìzìsìst*it oel ke lu, kxawm oel tutet lepamtseo lu.  Oe pxìm fpìl nìpamtseo, oel rey letrra ayunil oeyä nìpamtseo.

- Älpert Aynstayn

Offline Plumps

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 6144
  • Karma: 221
  • ’Ivong Na’vi
    • Aylì'uä Ramunong (Pìlok)
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2010, 03:46:04 am »
How does except function in Na'vi?  Can someone give me an example sentence using it?

Does it work like this:

Oel yolom nìwotx ngayä ikranit, mungrr-kxetse.

Or does it have another definition of "except", because:

Oel yolom stum nìwotx ngayä ikranit, slä kekxetse.

Means the same thing, although it is more wordy.  (I'm assuming ke- causes lenition?)

No, ke- doesn't cause lenition. Look at the word for "nothing" ke'u (otherwise it would be *keu)

As for the sentence, Frommer in his latest response uses only the example:
Quote from: Prof. Frommer
EYKtanmungwrr is stressed on the first syllable--a bit awkward, perhaps, but not too bad.
Unfortunately no whole sentence.
But bear in mind it's mungwrr kxetse but kxetsemungwrr
I'd say both of your sentences are valid.

Offline Na'rìghawnu

  • Tute
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
  • Karma: 22
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2010, 06:40:22 am »
Quote
Oel yolom nìwotx ngayä ikranit, mungrr-kxetse.

Should be "ngeyä", I suppose, shouldn't it?

I suppose too, that it should be "kxetset(i)", since this is also the object of "yom" here: I ate (whom?) the ikran but not (whom?) the tail.

Besides that: If an adposition is before a noun, it's NOT connected to it. It's a separate word (thus no hyphen).

Quote
Oel yolom stum nìwotx ngayä ikranit, slä kekxetse.

Doesn't seem to be ok in my eyes, because "ke" isn't an adposition. It's a separate word, meaning "not". (So no attaching of "ke" to any given noun!) If you like to combine it with a noun, it has to take the attributive form: kea (no). But this doesn't make much sense here, I think. "I ate nearly the whole ikran, but no tail." Besides that:
The negative in this sentence should be doubled, because that's what Frommer does in alike cases: "I don't eat no tail." = Oel ke yolom kea kxetse. But how to fit this with the sentence before is surely a bit tricky.

So I suggest to avoid the second sentence and use the first one as:
Oel yolom ngeyä ikranit nìwotx mungrr kxetset.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 06:42:44 am by Na'rìghawnu »

Offline roger

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 724
  • Karma: 22
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2010, 03:19:12 pm »
So I suggest to avoid the second sentence and use the first one as:
Oel yolom ngeyä ikranit nìwotx mungrr kxetset.

Yes, moving nìwotx to this position seems clearer to me too. And yes, the ACC makes sense on 'tail'. But we don't really know if the ACC can occur w prepositions like that--I suppose it would have too, otherwise we'd get readings like "all of us but the tail ate the banshee", but combining case and preps can potentially get rather complicated. The only example I'm aware of is in the SG, where they list "sat" for "that" after a leniting prep.

Offline Na'rìghawnu

  • Tute
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
  • Karma: 22
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2010, 01:19:14 am »
Quote
but combining case and preps can potentially get rather complicated.

Well, syntactically "except" behaves the same like "and". Syntactically "except" is much more a conjunction than a preposition. It's rather combining (or in this case: separating) nouns, than turning them into adverbials. There is no syntactic difference between the two sentences:
"I saw a lot of animals and flowers" and "I saw a lot of animals except ikrans". In both cases the nouns following the "I saw" are the objects of what I saw, so it would really be strange, if they both weren't in the accusative case.

I agree, that there is until now very little evidence about other adpositions, but at least we have got some examples about "sì", where there is no changing in the given case before and after the "sì", e. g. the accusative: "zene oe 'awsiteng tìkangkem sivi fohu a Uniltìrantokxit sì kifkeyit Eywa'evengä zamolunge awngar."

« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 04:40:40 am by Na'rìghawnu »

Offline roger

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 724
  • Karma: 22
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2010, 03:21:42 am »
But can we have the accusative if -sì is used as a suffix? Should ask that ...

Offline Lance R. Casey

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 948
  • se Sweden
  • Karma: 57
  • Man cenuva métim' andúnë?
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2010, 03:48:29 am »
But can we have the accusative if -sì is used as a suffix? Should ask that ...

Yes, we can:

zamivunge oel ayngar aylì'ut horentisì lì'fyayä leNa'vi

// Lance R. Casey

Offline wm.annis

  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3074
  • Karma: 143
  • Translate the meaning, not the words!
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2010, 07:30:42 am »
I would take care to distinguish from the adpositions.  is just a conjunction.  The thing they have in common is that they can be enclitic (i.e., attached to the end of the word they go with and losing their stress accent).  But we should not confuse the case-related behavior of the adpositions (for now — nouns with adpositions are not marked for case) with how works.
'Awa lì'fya ke tam kawkrr.
A Na'vi Reference Grammar

Offline roger

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 724
  • Karma: 22
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2010, 07:35:58 am »
which brings us back to Na'rìghawnu's question, Is mugwrr an adposition?

Offline wm.annis

  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3074
  • Karma: 143
  • Translate the meaning, not the words!
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2010, 07:42:42 am »
which brings us back to Na'rìghawnu's question, Is mugwrr an adposition?

Our Canon source uses the notation (ADP-).  So it sure seems to be.
'Awa lì'fya ke tam kawkrr.
A Na'vi Reference Grammar

Offline Na'rìghawnu

  • Tute
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
  • Karma: 22
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2010, 07:57:08 am »
And therefore a noun after the "except" shall no longer be an object, although the noun before the "except" is an object? It's hard to believe this. It would cause much irritation. Roger gave a good example for the troubles this would evoke.

As said:
"I saw all the animals except the ikrans"
"Animals" as well as "ikrans" are the objects of "see", but only the first one shall be marked as accusative?

Tsole'a oel ayioangit nìwotx mungwrr ayikran. [?]

I'd still rather vote for:
Tsole'a oel ayioangit nìwotx mungwrr ayikranit.

PS: As far as a language does require a certain case after certain prepositions, this would be understandable to me in Na'vi too. But Na'vi-adpositions don't require a case (as well as conjunctions do), so they also do not require the nominative. Or is it a fact, that all adpositions long for the nominative case? I've absolutely no problem with adpositions, which - together with their noun - form an adverbial phrase (like "utralne" = to the tree (adverb of direction)). Such adpositions may require or not require, whatever karyu Pawl want's them to do, but "mungwrr" is special: it doesn't make up an adverb with it's noun, it separates this noun from the previously namend ones ... it's like "but" (and this too is an conjunction), so the syntactic funktion of the words preceding and following the "except" is the same. And if this function is this of a direct object, it's hard to understand, why the one word gets the accusative, while the other does not.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 08:15:58 am by Na'rìghawnu »

Offline wm.annis

  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3074
  • Karma: 143
  • Translate the meaning, not the words!
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2010, 08:02:04 am »

"I saw all the animals except the ikrans"
"Animals" as well as "ikrans" are the objects of "see", but only the first one shall be marked as accusative?

Tsole'a oel ayioangit nìwotx mungwrr ayikran. [?]

Yes.  This isn't completely unprecedented.  The ancient Greek equivalent of this adposition, πλήν + gen., works the same.
'Awa lì'fya ke tam kawkrr.
A Na'vi Reference Grammar

Offline Na'rìghawnu

  • Tute
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
  • Karma: 22
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2010, 08:22:06 am »

Yes, of course. "praeter (+ acc.)" in Latin does it, "außer (+ dat./acc.)" in my mothertongue German does it too.

But as said (in my PS added to my posting above): Is it sure, that adpositions long for the nominative case in Na'vi? Or do they long for no special case and usually take the nominative, because there is no reason to take another one? (Like in "ne utral" ... there is no reason for any other case than the nominative here, because the "ne" by itself makes already clear, that it is an information about direction, so there's no real need of a special case for the belonging noun). But - as said - mungwrr is special, because it doesn't make up a new sentence element (? Satzglied) together with it's noun (as e. g. "ne + noun" do: they form an adverbial). The syntactic funktion of the word following the "except" is the same as the function of the preceding word. So their case should be the same, as long as adpositions (to which mungwrr belongs) don't require the nominative. Do they?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 08:44:24 am by Na'rìghawnu »

Offline Nawmaritie

  • 'Eveng
  • ***
  • Posts: 253
  • Karma: 10
  • oeyä txìmìl txana ayeltut ngop
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2010, 04:48:08 pm »
I don't think that the prepositional phrase (in this case "mungwrr- + Noun) and the preceeding noun have the same syntactical function. The prepositional phrase (or can one call it an "adpositional phrase" ?) acts in my opinion as a noun-modifier. I don't know the english word for something like that, in German it would be "Präpositionales Attribut", which would make it syntactically not much different than an adjective. It's not gramatically necessary (no matter whether it's necessary for the meaning).
"I saw all animals" is a complete sentence, by adding "except Ikrans" just the object is further described. One could make some sort of adjective out of it: "I saw all non-ikranian animals", while not very pretty, it has basically the same meaning.
Additionally the preposition "except" is used to exclude a part of a bigger thing (the tail of the ikran, all animals except ikran) and can only be used with nouns, while the conjunction "except" can connect sentences, too or a prepositional phrase to a sentence.

While it would be nice to have cases even with adpositions (I'm used to that, nominative + adposition is kinda weird), I think it would be kinde counterproductive if like in the forementioned examples the object is modified. As "mungwrr" is an adposition it can stand before and after the noun, so if it's in between nouns, which is the one it refers to? (if there are two accusatives)
Of course written down one can see whether it's attached to a noun or not, but spoken? I know it's enclitic, but I don't think that the difference will be really audible unless one really pronounces the stresses.

If it could be used as a conjunction (which according to canon is not the case, as was mentioned before) and therefore connect two nouns as equal parts of a sentence, it would be "but not" or a negating effect on the sentence without it. "I kill noone but you" is basically "I don't kill anyone but you" which is a short form of "I don't kill anyone, but I kill you" -> the negation of the sentence is negated and therefore disappers (no double negation stuff here). While it might look the same from the words, the meaning and syntactically structure is different depending on whether it's the preposition or the conjunction.


So, um, my point is: Unless except can be used as an adposition and a conjunction, "mungwrr- + noun" is an adpositional phrase that describes another noun or might act as an adverbial phrase, but is not a second object or subject and therefore should not get the case marker.
And whether it can act as a conjunction, too, is up to Prof. Frommer.


just my 2cents


P.S.: I'm all for using it as both, adp. and conj. ... another word for free ;)
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 04:56:04 pm by Nawmaritie »
ke'u tsatìfkeyuyä hapxìmungwrr
a frakrr tìkawngit neiew mivunge
slä tìsìltsanit ngop nì'aw frakrr

Na'vi-Deutsch Wörterbuch
Deutsch-Na'vi Wörterbuch

Offline Na'rìghawnu

  • Tute
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
  • Karma: 22
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2010, 05:23:49 pm »
Quote
acts in my opinion as a noun-modifier
Agree.

Quote
that describes another noun or might act as an adverbial phrase,

And exactly the "or" here is the contradiction! Describing a noun is the function of an attribute. An adverbial has nothing to do with nouns, but explains the circumstances of the predicate's action. "towards the tree" gives an explanation about the direction of the predicate; "except the ikrans" is either another object or explains the object. It's a significant difference between these two sentence elements. According to your idea, what kind of adverbial the "except"-phrase should be? The adverbial of exception? And how should this explain the predicate? As long as it doesn't, it's no adverbial.

Quote
I think it would be kinde counterproductive if like in the forementioned examples the object is modified.

I beg your pardon. I can't follow you, because what I hold is, that the object remains the object. Thus accusative (as normal in objects) and NO modifying.

Quote
As "mungwrr" is an adposition it can stand before and after the noun, so if it's in between nouns, which is the one it refers to? (if there are two accusatives)

But how can you avoid this problem in modifying the "second" noun to nominative case? I'll try to figure out, what you mean (hopefully hitting the point).

(1) ~~~ object1-ACC mungwrr object1-ACC ~~~ (This - and Example (2) - is, what I hold.)
(2) ~~~ object1-ACC object2-ACC-mungwrr ~~~

In case of modifying the object2, this would result in

(3) ~~~ object1-ACC mungwrr object2-NOM ~~~
(4) ~~~ object1-ACC object2-NOM-mungwrr ~~~ (right?)

So, where's the problem? Both are understandable without troubles, I think. And if you think of another noun, following the object2, then this more likely is an nominative than another accusative, thus the problem of misunderstanding is rather in the cases (3) and exspecially in (4) than (1) and (2).

(1*) ACC mungwrr ACC NOM = no problem
(2*) ACC ACC-mungwrr NOM = no problem
(3*) ACC mungwrr NOM NOM = ok
(4*) ACC NOM-mungwrr NOM = troublesome, could be "NOM except NOM", because you don't hear the hyphen

Quote
the negation of the sentence is negated and therefore disappers
Errr... no. Double negations don't function according to logics in Na'vi. So e. g. "I don't kill the ikran" is realized as "I don't kill no ikran" in Na'vi. Hence you can't approach this problem using the "double negation = positive"-attempt.

Well ... as said.
We'll have to wait Frommers thoughts about
1. how to solve problems resulting out of "nominativezating" a noun belonging to mungwrr (Roger gave an example);
2. are adpositions requiring the nominative case or simply no special case, and therefore normally nominative.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 05:29:28 pm by Na'rìghawnu »

Offline Nawmaritie

  • 'Eveng
  • ***
  • Posts: 253
  • Karma: 10
  • oeyä txìmìl txana ayeltut ngop
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2010, 05:52:47 pm »
And exactly the "or" here is the contradiction! Describing a noun is the function of an attribute. An adverbial has nothing to do with nouns, but explains the circumstances of the predicate's action. "towards the tree" gives an explanation about the direction of the predicate; "except the ikrans" is either another object or explains the object. It's a significant difference between these two sentence elements. According to your idea, what kind of adverbial the "except"-phrase should be? The adverbial of exception? And how should this explain the predicate? As long as it doesn't, it's no adverbial.

I mean, if I were to say "I eat Ikran except sunday" then the "except sunday" would be an adverbial phrase and not a noun modifier. I know that in English or German the word would be "sundays" and therefore be an adverb already or "at/on a sunday" at therefore be another prepositional phrase, but it does not mean that it would be same in Na'vi. It could work like that (almost, we have no word for sunday)

Quote
Quote
I think it would be kinde counterproductive if like in the forementioned examples the object is modified.

I beg your pardon. I can't follow you, because what I hold is, that the object remains the object. Thus accusative (as normal in objects) and NO modifying.

Quote
As "mungwrr" is an adposition it can stand before and after the noun, so if it's in between nouns, which is the one it refers to? (if there are two accusatives)

But how can you avoid this problem in modifying the "second" noun to nominative case? I'll try to figure out, what you mean (hopefully hitting the point).
[...]
So, where's the problem? Both are understandable without troubles, I think. And if you think of another noun, following the object2, then this more likely is an nominative than another accusative, thus the problem of misunderstanding is rather in the cases (3) and exspecially in (4) than (1) and (2).

(1*) ACC mungwrr ACC NOM = no problem
(2*) ACC ACC-mungwrr NOM = no problem
(3*) ACC mungwrr NOM NOM = ok
(4*) ACC NOM-mungwrr NOM = troublesome, could be "NOM except NOM", because you don't hear the hyphen

the situation would be ACC mungwrr ACC
If the acc is used and "mungwrr" understood in the way of "but not" as other examples stated, it could, then nouns could be used, where noun2 is not part of the bigger noun1 together with free word order: "palulukanit mungwrr ikranit" so does one eat palulukan but not ikran or does one eat ikran nut not palulukan.
example No.4: yes, maybe, if the following sentence starts with a noun in nominative. In my opinion (1) and (4) would face the same "problem" then.

Quote
Quote
the negation of the sentence is negated and therefore disappers
Errr... no. Double negations don't function according to logics in Na'vi. So e. g. "I don't kill the ikran" is realized as "I don't kill no ikran" in Na'vi. Hence you can't approach this problem using the "double negation = positive"-attempt.
[/quote]

I didn't mean in Na'vi per se. There is no second negotation that is actually stated, but "except" and "but" (which is in this case only short for "but not" IMHO) have that included.
"I eat the ikran except the tail" = "I eat the ikran but I don't eat the tail"  (eat is negated)
"I kill noone except you" = "I don't kill anyone, but I kill you" (negation of kill or the negation of the object is deleted)
I didn't mean introducing a second negation per se. I think I could have written that differently.



and, um, I'm sorry, if my words sounded offensive, I didn't mean it like that, I'm always writing/talking like that that, and I know that it can sound a bit aggressive, but I don't know how to change that -.-'
ke'u tsatìfkeyuyä hapxìmungwrr
a frakrr tìkawngit neiew mivunge
slä tìsìltsanit ngop nì'aw frakrr

Na'vi-Deutsch Wörterbuch
Deutsch-Na'vi Wörterbuch

Offline Na'rìghawnu

  • Tute
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
  • Karma: 22
Re: Use of "except" (mungwrr-)
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2010, 06:23:52 pm »

Quote
and, um, I'm sorry, if my words sounded offensive, I didn't mean it like that, I'm always writing/talking like that that, and I know that it can sound a bit aggressive, but I don't know how to change that -.-'

No need for any excuse. You know ... I'm German. There are surely no other people so afraid of sounding rude, when they speak e. g. English, than us Germans. I always fear, that people might take my words offensive, but they nearly never are ment so. It's all a problem resulting out of the combination of the normal German discussions pattern (which isn't easy to drop) and my horribly bad usage of the English language. So, IF someone has to excuse for that, then this is me.  :D

Quote
I mean, if I were to say "I eat Ikran except sunday" then the "except sunday" would be an adverbial phrase and not a noun modifier. I know that in English or German the word would be "sundays" and therefore be an adverb already or "at/on a sunday" at therefore be another prepositional phrase, but it does not mean that it would be same in Na'vi. It could work like that (almost, we have no word for sunday)
Ok. Now I got it. But as you say, the "except" doesn't change the sunday into an adverbial ... it is already one. So in my point of view, it most likely has already got it's adposition and the "except" just connects it to the sentence (something like [~~~ except [on sunday]]). So it (again) functions rather as a conjunction than as an adposition. (I even would go so far and say, that there's also an elliptical "all the time" or "at any given time" understood before the "except", so that - again - there is the same sentence element before and after the "except" - this time it's not an object, it's an adverbial: "I eat ikrans [[at any given time] except [on sundays]]".)
But ... maybe ... there's the chance, that it's different in Na'vi. Please, Paul, tell us!

Quote
"palulukanit mungwrr ikranit" so does one eat palulukan but not ikran or does one eat ikran nut not palulukan.
I see. Well ... in German (and I think in English too) we also can put the "except the ikran" before the "palulukan", but IF we do so, the "except + noun" has to be followed by the predicate (or at least it's first part) and then comes the palulukan. So maybe, to avoid misunderstandings, there will be more rules about the word-order in sentences. Please, Paul, tell us!

So ... I'd suggest settling the dispute until Dr. Frommer brought us some enlightment.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 02:54:15 am by Na'rìghawnu »

 

Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
| XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, LightStorm Entertainment or The Walt Disney Company.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi