Why no plural imperative?

[Plumps]

Don't know if that fits here... Just wanted to ask whether you also think it odd that we have this elaborate plural system with dual, trial and plural but strangely enough no distinction between commanding one or more than one person?

German does it with the plural form of the verb.
Komm herein. »Come in« (one person)
Kommt herein. »Come in y'all« (more than one)

Irish has a special plural imperative form.
Imigh liom. »Leave me« (one person)
Imígí liom. »Leave me« (more than one)

Do you think there would be potential for a plural imperative in Na'vi?
I know, one thing speaks against it ... we have too many examples from the film (pot yìm! mefoti yìm! pot lonu! and so forth) I just wanted to know what you think.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Na'vi imperatives aren't marked and I'd assume it would be reasonable to specify the subject e.g. nga za'u oehu vs menga za'u oehu vs pxenga za'u oehu vs aynga za'u oehu. I don't see how na'vi doesn't have them.

[omängum fra'uti]

Oe kemeoauniaeahu mllte.

In all the examples from the movie it was either obvious who was being addressed from context (Those holding him, release him) or the exact who was unimportant/they knew it was them (Person nearby with the skills/tools, bind them).

[Plumps]

Tam, I get your points ... but especially kemeoauniaea's examples make it difficult to distinguish whether it's an ordinary sentence or an imperative, doesn't it?

But otherwise, you are both right, of course. The language has ways around it – either by context or structure, I guess

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Tam, I get your points ... but especially kemeoauniaea's examples make it difficult to distinguish whether it's an ordinary sentence or an imperative, doesn't it?

That's the disadvantage of not marking imperatives. I suppose that the na'vi might use a different tone of voice but I'd need to watch the film again to check and I don't have the DVD.

[Kì'eyawn]

Tam, I get your points ... but especially kemeoauniaea's examples make it difficult to distinguish whether it's an ordinary sentence or an imperative, doesn't it?

That's the disadvantage of not marking imperatives. I suppose that the na'vi might use a different tone of voice but I'd need to watch the film again to check and I don't have the DVD.

It might be conveyed with a mix of tone and (sometimes) word order.  Hasn't the consensus been that Neytiri yells Ftang nga! at Jake?  Maybe including the "target" of the imperative is optional, but when it's included it comes after the verb?  Y/N/M?

[Muzer]

It is ftang nga, according to the Wiki at least.

I wouldn't expect it to be based on word order, judging by what we know about Na'vi at the moment - I think it's obvious from context whether it's a command or a statement. For example, "you stop" is occasionally used in English, but nobody has any difficulty in working out that it is a command, even though it could legally be a statement (not least because statements in the present tense second person aren't all too common outside of questions). I think the target, as you say, is usually optional, but if there would be ambiguity (as has been mentioned, whether you're instructing one person or many, or which person), it's best to include the target. The only time I could think of ambiguity is when using lu, and even then most of the time the context should assist.

This is mostly IMHO.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Tam, I get your points ... but especially kemeoauniaea's examples make it difficult to distinguish whether it's an ordinary sentence or an imperative, doesn't it?

That's the disadvantage of not marking imperatives. I suppose that the na'vi might use a different tone of voice but I'd need to watch the film again to check and I don't have the DVD.

It might be conveyed with a mix of tone and (sometimes) word order.  Hasn't the consensus been that Neytiri yells Ftang nga! at Jake?  Maybe including the "target" of the imperative is optional, but when it's included it comes after the verb?  Y/N/M?

It's plausible. We know that Frommer has yet to work out what each word order means beyond the primary and secondary foci and from that the fact that some word orders resemble an English passive more than others (but don't actually give the same meaning), I can easily see some of the word orders being used for imperatives and similar unmarked constructions.

[wm.annis]

It might be conveyed with a mix of tone and (sometimes) word order.  Hasn't the consensus been that Neytiri yells Ftang nga! at Jake?  Maybe including the "target" of the imperative is optional, but when it's included it comes after the verb?  Y/N/M?

Given the nature of imperatives, if there were a word order tendency or rule (which I doubt) it would be for the verb to go last.  As Frommer says, the end of a phrase is where the "punch" is.

We have a plural imperative in the Hunt Song:

 Ha ftxey
 'awpot set ftxey aygnal a l(u) ayngakip
 'awpot a Na'viru yomtìyìng.
 So choose,
 choose ("you" pl) now one who is among you
 one who will feed the people

Note that only in the second line is the command propped up with an explicit pronoun.

[Kì'eyawn]

I don't mean that this particular word order is set in stone; but we know that possession is generally expressed with lu (possessor)-DAT (possessed).  So, it seems plausible to me that imperatives that include the noun generally put the verb before the noun; but of course, i don't mean to say it has to be that way.

Alternatively, maybe what makes that structure imperative is that the person is being addressed and yet ma isn't being used (although i've never seen "ma nga," now that i think about it...).  It would make sense of why Tsu'tey yells to Jake during the ikran taming, Txopu rä'ä si, tsamsiyu!, in any case.

I dunno, just throwing ideas out there.

[Muzer]

I was thinking about that earlier today actually - I thought either there shouldn't be a comma there, and it's actually the "target" of the imperative specifically mentioned (as discussed above); or it is an address, but in the millitary register, "ma" becomes optional. That's purely speculation, again.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Or he might just be reminding Jake that (as he is going to become a warrior) a warrior isn't afraid. It could just be a statement, not necessarily an imperative (although an imperative seem more likely).

[Muzer]

I thought the rä'ä was only in imperatives?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I thought the rä'ä was only in imperatives?

Good point, there goes my theory. I guess it's either a military register thing or an imperatives thing (which would be kind of cool).

[omängum fra'uti]

Word order never changes the grammatical nature of a sentence.  Despite the comments that some orders would have similar use to a passive structure, the meaning and grammar in the word order is unchanged.

Also about ma...  "pivlltxe ma Jakesully"

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Hmmm... maybe the ma becomes optional in imperatives? Or, as seems increasingly likely the ma dropping is a military register thing.

[omängum fra'uti]

Or an actor mistake / cameron override that then has to be back fit into the language.

The military register was developed for the game, not the movie.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Or an actor mistake / cameron override that then has to be back fit into the language.

The military register was developed for the game, not the movie.

True points both. I guess it's probably a retrofit then.

[Muzer]

Or we could go back to the other theory that "tsamsiyu" is the "target" of the imperative (is there a technical word for that, because I'm tired of putting it in quotation marks), just as nga is the "target" of "ftang nga".

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Or we could go back to the other theory that "tsamsiyu" is the "target" of the imperative (is there a technical word for that, because I'm tired of putting it in quotation marks), just as nga is the "target" of "ftang nga".

The "target" of the imperative is (I think) always be the person being addressed so should (but that doesn't mean it always would) be vocative.