Learn Na'vi > Advanced Grammar

Weird thoughts about reflexive

(1/3) > >>

Tìtstewan:
Tse, ma smuk,

In this thread was once a small discussion regarding reflexive [<äp> vs sno]. I didn't forgot that topic of that thread and I thought about it. Probably some of these examples make more than less sense, but I think they are interesting and whort a discussion.
I make this as its own topic not to derail the old thread. :)

Some quotes,

--- Quote from: Plumps on February 13, 2014, 08:14:24 am ---
--- Quote from: Tìtstewan on February 13, 2014, 08:07:55 am ---          Tute a w<ol>eyn snot tumpin-mì.
          Woman which painted herself in red.
--- End quote ---

Here, *snot doesn’t seem right. The reflexive infix ‹äp› still applies, so tuté a wäpoleyn tumpinfa still holds true.

But that is perhaps more than tsmuke Kerame Ayo’koti wants to go into right now…
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Kemaweyan ---Why?
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Kemaweyan on February 13, 2014, 08:59:58 am ---
--- Quote from: Plumps on February 13, 2014, 08:49:50 am ---Because it would make ‹äp› redundant altogether, don’t you think ;) Otherwise, our walk-around of 3, 4 years ago with *oel tse’a oeti “I see me” would be grammatical—which it is not ;)

--- End quote ---

Why it is not grammatical? It could be stylistically incorrect or unnatural, but grammatically it would be correct. There are transitive verb, its subject and object. Oe (and sno too) has forms oel and oet, so grammatically there is no problems :)
--- End quote ---
I somehow agree with Kemaweyan. Why "Oel tse'a ngat" is grammatically not a problem but "Oel tse'a oet"?

[1]
Oel tse'a ngati.
EN: I see you.
DE: Ich sehe dich.         [2]
Oel tse'a oeti.
EN: I see me.
DE: Ich sehe mich.         [3]
Oe tsäpe'a
EN: I see myself.
DE: Ich sehe mich selbst.
In this case of "I see me" the logic would say that if "I see me", I see myself. Of course, it sounds totally weird in Na'vi ears or it is uncommon. In Na'vi one would prefer the last example [3] with <äp>. The second case [2] would make more sense as "Oel tse'a oet unilmì." "I see me in a dream", maybe.
But, what about this:

Pol tse'a snot.
EN: He sees hisself.
DE: Er sieht sich selbst.
 :-\

Or this original sentence, where the discussion appears:
Tute a woleyn snot tumpinmì.
The woman which painted herself in red.             
Die Frau, die sich selbst in Rot bemalte.Tute a wäpoleyn tumpinmì.
The women which painted herself in red.
Die Frau, die sich selbst in Rot bemalte.

So, a more weird thing:

A
Po lew si X-ru.
EN: He covers X.
DE: Er bedeckt X.

B
Po lew säpi.
EN: He covers hisself.
DE: Er bedeckt sich (selbst).

C
Po law si snor.
EN: He covers hisself.
DE: Er bedeckt sich selbst.

D
Pol law seyki snoti.
EN: He cause to cover hisself.
DE: Er veranlasst sich selbst zu bedecken.

E
Po law säpeyki.
EN: He cause to cover hisself.
DE: Er veranlasst sich selbst zu bedecken.

Well, maybe, C is sounds weird and D/E is nosense...
Thoughts? :)

Tanri:
While "oel tse’a oet" or "pol tse’a snot" type sentences are not utterly bad (at least from technical point of view), they are not good.
They represent an abuse of a grammatical construction for the purpose it wasn't created for.

Maybe it's better to look into the past, how and why these constructions have been introduced into language:


‹äp› infix is here from the very beginning, and it's purpose is to apply an action back to the subject (the "doer" of that action). This means that subject and object of some verb are no more independent persons/things, but they merge into single one. For example "Oe tsäpe’a" - I see myself.

Historically, ‹äp› was used only with transitive verbs, because only those have subject and object ("direct object").
However, to this moment we were presented with two examples of intransitive verb taking ‹äp›: "win säpi" - "to hurry" and "ioi säpi" - "to adorn oneself".


sno pronoun was introduced in autumn 2010, for a very specific reason.
Before "sno", we don't have any possibility to distinguish between 3th person pronoun "po" and some other person in the same sentence.
So the pronoun "sno" was created to resolve that ambiguity:

"Pol peyä tstalti litx sleyku" - He sharpens his knife. (two people involved - one person sharpens the knife of the second person)
"Pol sneyä tstalti litx sleyku" - He sharpens his own knife.

Lately, the dative "snor" has appeared:
"Po yawne lu snor" - He loves himself.
in contrast with
"Po yawne lu por" - He loves him. (someone else)


As you see, ma Tìtstewan, ‹äp› and sno fit into different situations and shouldn't be deliberately replaced with each other.
Also, placing single one person/thing simultaneously to the roles of the subject and the object of the same verb (using -l and -t infixes), does not makes any sense - because we have ‹äp› infix just for this purpose.

Plumps:
I agree completely with Tanri in this matter!


--- Quote from: Tanri on July 12, 2014, 03:51:51 pm ---Historically, ‹äp› was used only with transitive verbs, because only those have subject and object ("direct object").
However, to this moment we were presented with two examples of intransitive verb taking ‹äp›: "win säpi" - "to hurry" and "ioi säpi" - "to adorn oneself".
--- End quote ---

I would treat si verbs as a special category here. Because we have the weird situation that some of the si verbs — while they are grammatically intransitive — denote stative functions, some of them are semantically transitive. So, the ones you mentioned are the weird ones out but we also have tstu/piak säpi, lew säpi

Tìtstewan:
Aysì'eyngìri mengeyä oe seiyi irayo nìtxan! :)

Well, I've warned that some of these examples are totally weird and wrong, but all this is very interesting and I posted it for future questions on that. There also shown the weirdness of some si-verbs*; those with <äp> infix.

So, constructions like "oel tse'a oet. / Po tse'a snot." sounds weird in Na'vi ears (to be honest, some of them sounds also in my ears weird). There should be used <äp> only: Oe tsäpe'a. / Po tsäpe'a.

Kemaweyan:
Well. Maybe it is not applicable in Na'vi, but there are both forms in Russian and we can choose any of them. I'm just talking about the logics of a language which has the same constructions (as sno and -äp-). So I don't see any reasons why po yawne lu snor is correct, but pol tse'a snot is incorrect. Sno does not change its own meaning, it still means the same person - who makes an action. Also it a pronoun and I don't see any reasons to think that it's forbidden to add -ti to sno. Moreover I think snol would be correct too:

  -Pesul tspolang poti?
  -Snol.
  -Who killed him?
  -(He did it) himself.

I could accept only a rule from Pawl. If he says that it is incorrect, I accept it just as a feature of Na'vi. But it would be weird for me.

***

Also I think that there are three types of verbs in Na'vi: intransitive, transitive and "pseudo-transitive". I mean the verbs like pamrel si, piak si, tstu si etc. Grammatically they are intransitive (could not be used with -l/-ti), but by they mean actions which have direct objects. And I don't mean a translation, I mean exactly the meaning of those actions. And actually there could be some verbs in the dictionary which we do not their transitivity for sure :-\

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version