A Question About LN #5.3

[Frakrr Tswerayon]

In "Na'vi in a Nutshell", language note 5.3 says that in combination verbs the infixes rules apply to the primary verb only.  My question is, how exactly does one know which is the primary verb?

Frakrr Tswerayon

[Nyx]

Often such verbs are constructed from a verb and something that isn't a verb. For example, maweypey consists of mawey and pey where only pey is a verb so all infixes in that part. Another example is zeyko, which is zo with the causative infix <eyk>, so all infixes go before the o (<eyk> is pre-first position and all other infixes would go after it anyway).

If you're not sure, you can always check the dictionary, infix positions are marked with a dot there (not the one that looks like a period, the other one).

[Tirea Aean]

In "Na'vi in a Nutshell", language note 5.3 says that in combination verbs the infixes rules apply to the primary verb only.  My question is, how exactly does one know which is the primary verb?

Frakrr Tswerayon

except the following verb and a few others...

Spoiler: blown up example

vtr. tungzup [t·uŋ.ˈz·up̚]


vin. yomtìng [ˈjom.t·ɪŋ]

if you use vrrtepcli and know the English word, you can call both the ipa and infix positions easily when in doubt:

Spoiler: bash

tirea@ean:~$ vrrtepcli -l -i -ipa feed
Vrrtep CLI v1.92 by Tirea Aean. run 'vrrtepcli -h' for usage.

Query matches:
vin. yomtìng [ˈjom.t·ɪŋ] yomt<1><2><3>ìng

tirea@ean:~$ vrrtepcli -l -i -ipa interpret
Vrrtep CLI v1.92 by Tirea Aean. run 'vrrtepcli -h' for usage.

Query matches:
vtr. ralpeng [ɾal.ˈp·ɛŋ] ralp<1><2><3>eng

tirea@ean:~$ vrrtepcli -l -i -ipa drop
Vrrtep CLI v1.92 by Tirea Aean. run 'vrrtepcli -h' for usage.

Query matches:
vtr. tungzup [t·uŋ.ˈz·up̚] t<1><2>ungz<3>up
n. ìlva [ˈɪl.va] \n
n. payìva [ˈpaj.ɪ.va] \n

So in short answer to your question, The dictionary.

EDIT: ninja'd.

DOUBLE EDIT: infix positions in the database appear to still be 1 2 3 notation instead of the more modern 0 1 2... same concept though... >.<

[Tanri]

This is a very interesting question, ma Frakrr Tswerayon.
Question that looks simple and easy, but the answer can be complicated.
Also, this is only my opinion which may be correct, but maybe not. I hope that the more experienced or professional linguist corrects me.
So, when we have a verb that was created as combination of two another verbs, how can we specify the more significant one of them?
Basically, the primary verb acts as a true verb, while the second verb acts as a object of the primary verb.

The primary verb is a verb, that cannot be replaced by another type of word, without significant change on the meaning.

For example, newomum - to be curious.
The two source verbs are new - to want, and omum - to know. The meaning of "to be curious" is surely "to want to know".
Which one of the verbs is more important?
If I replace one of the verbs by noun, what happens?
omum:
I want to know -> I want the knowledge
The meaning is basically the same, so the verb "to know" cannot be the primary one.
new:
I want to know -> I "the wanting" know, I know "the wanting".
The meaning is completely twisted and different to the original meaning.
Thus the verb new - "to want" must be the primary one.

Another example: yomtìng - "to feed", created from the verbs yom - to eat, and tìng - to give.
The meaning of yomtìng is clearly "to give (something edible)", so if the verb "to eat" can be easily replaced with the noun "something edible", the primary one is tìng.


Edit: too late, as usual, and sorry for my English. As "the wanting" a mean "the name for the act that someone wants something".
Irayo seiyi, ma Tirea.

[Tirea Aean]

This is a very interesting question, ma Frakrr Tswerayon.
Question that looks simple and easy, but the answer can be complicated.
Also, this is only my opinion which may be correct, but maybe not. I hope that the more experienced or professional linguist corrects me.
So, when we have a verb that was created as combination of two another verbs, how can we specify the more significant one of them?
Basically, the primary verb acts as a true verb, while the second verb acts as a object of the primary verb.

The primary verb is a verb, that cannot be replaced by another type of word, without significant change on the meaning.

For example, newomum - to be curious.
The two source verbs are new - to want, and omum - to know. The meaning of "to be curious" is surely "to want to know".
Which one of the verbs is more important?
If I replace one of the verbs by noun, what happens?
omum:
I want to know -> I want the knowledge
The meaning is basically the same, so the verb "to know" cannot be the primary one.
new:
I want to know -> I "the wanting" know, I know "the wanting".
The meaning is completely twisted and different to the original meaning.
Thus the verb new - "to know want" must be the primary one.

Another example: yomtìng - "to feed", created from the verbs yom - to eat, and tìng - to give.
The meaning of yomtìng is clearly "to give (something edible)", so if the verb "to eat" can be easily replaced with the noun "something edible", the primary one is tìng.

actually, there is a current inconsistency in the database. Just made a post in the dictionary thread.

Spoiler

inconsistency found:

an output of vrrtepcli -l -i -ipa curious


vin. newomum [n·ɛw.ˈo.mum] newom<1><2><3>um


database IPA data says n<><><>ewomum, but infix data says newom<><><>um

EDIT:

newomum   VI   'be curious (want to know)' [n●●ewomum]

DOUBLE EDIT: I agree with you ma Tanri. You're right, as far as I know. you just mixed up the meanings of new and omum, possibly a quick typo.

[Frakrr Tswerayon]

Irayo frapo! 

Frakrr Tswerayon

[Tirea Aean]

Irayo ma frapo! 

Frakrr Tswerayon

nìprrte'

[Frakrr Tswerayon]

Irayo for the correction ma Tirea!  Mistakes are the best way to learn. 

[Tirea Aean]

Irayo for the correction ma Tirea!  Mistakes are the best way to learn. 

agreed. no problem