Correction rutxe^^

[Tarina]

So I was trying to translate "All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream" (by Poe.. yea  ) and now I need to know whether it's right or not.

Nìwotx a ayoeng kame fu lam lu nì'aw unil mì unil

Irayo 

[bommel]

I know I shouldn't post because I have no clue but if I remember right "kame" is for seeing spiritually but probably here is physical seeing meant?

[Muzer]

So I was trying to translate "All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream" (by Poe.. yea   ) and now I need to know whether it's right or not.

Nìwotx a ayoeng kame fu lam lu nì'aw unil mì unil

Irayo  

"a" attaches to nouns in the main clause to form a subordinate clause. However, there isn't a noun to attach to here. I think you meant something more like "everything" rather than nìwotx, as nìwotx is an adverb (the "all" in "I ate it all", for example - not really the same thing. All isn't really a very good definition TBH, it should be something more like "completely"). That way, you'll have your noun to attach that "a" to, and it'll make sense. So, it would be:

Fra'u a ayoeng kame fu lam lu nì'aw unil mì unil

Secondly, I don't know whether you're allowed a subordinate clause in the middle of a sentence - it always seems slightly ambiguous to me (I REALLY need to look that up, I'm sure it is known...). If if turns out that you're not, you'd probably want to move it to the end:

Lu nì'aw unil mì unil fra'u a ayoeng kame fu lam

Thirdly, I don't know whether fu can be used to attach two verbs together. I don't think anybody knows that yet, so you may as well keep it until we hear otherwise.

Finally, I think ayoeng should have the ergative there (someone correct me if I'm wrong), as the object (everything) is implied from the "a" - ayoengìl.



(I'm still not all too proficient in Na'vi grammar, so take my advice with a pinch of salt)






EDIT: I also agree with bommel, I missed that when I first read it - it seems he is talking about physically seeing here (talking about how worthless it is), so it should be tse'a.

[Tarina]

I was thinking about that word for see, but for some reason I didn't find it... I guess missed it. 
Would sì be better than fu?
I was also thinking about when ayoe is used instead of ayoeng...? I know that they're exclusive and inclusive, but somehow I just don't get it.

[Muzer]

Ayoeng is almost certainly right there. Ayoe refers to the speaker and many other people, but NOT the person the message is being directed to. Ayoeng refers the speaker, many other people, AND the person the message is being directed to (the "ng" actually comes from "nga" here - think of it as "we and you"). Ayoeng is shortened down to "awnga" sometimes.

[Tarina]

Ah I get it now xD Irayo 

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Secondly, I don't know whether you're allowed a subordinate clause in the middle of a sentence - it always seems slightly ambiguous to me (I REALLY need to look that up, I'm sure it is known...). If if turns out that you're not, you'd probably want to move it to the end:

Lu nì'aw unil mì unil fra'u a ayoeng kame fu lam

Thirdly, I don't know whether fu can be used to attach two verbs together. I don't think anybody knows that yet, so you may as well keep it until we hear otherwise.

Finally, I think ayoeng should have the ergative there (someone correct me if I'm wrong), as the object (everything) is implied from the "a" - ayoengìl.



(I'm still not all too proficient in Na'vi grammar, so take my advice with a pinch of salt)






EDIT: I also agree with bommel, I missed that when I first read it - it seems he is talking about physically seeing here (talking about how worthless it is), so it should be tse'a.

1. You certainly are if it's modal, otherwise, I still think it'd be ok and covered by na'vi having free constituent order.

2. This is a use of nì'aw to mean "merely" which may or may not have a different word in na'vi.

3. fu's listed as a conjunction so I'd say it's ok.

I'd probably use ayoeng not ayoe, really Poe was referring to frapo when he said "we" so you could even use that if you want.

[Tarina]

So is "lu nì'aw unil mì unil fra'u a ayoengìl tse'a fu lam" the correct translation?

[Muzer]

Secondly, I don't know whether you're allowed a subordinate clause in the middle of a sentence - it always seems slightly ambiguous to me (I REALLY need to look that up, I'm sure it is known...). If if turns out that you're not, you'd probably want to move it to the end:

Lu nì'aw unil mì unil fra'u a ayoeng kame fu lam

Thirdly, I don't know whether fu can be used to attach two verbs together. I don't think anybody knows that yet, so you may as well keep it until we hear otherwise.

Finally, I think ayoeng should have the ergative there (someone correct me if I'm wrong), as the object (everything) is implied from the "a" - ayoengìl.



(I'm still not all too proficient in Na'vi grammar, so take my advice with a pinch of salt)






EDIT: I also agree with bommel, I missed that when I first read it - it seems he is talking about physically seeing here (talking about how worthless it is), so it should be tse'a.

1. You certainly are if it's modal, otherwise, I still think it'd be ok and covered by na'vi having free constituent order.

It always seems to get a little hairy where you jump back into the main clause, especially if some or all of the nouns are implied from previously, it's often hard to see what clause a noun in the middle belongs to - perhaps we need to start punctating it with a comma?

2. This is a use of nì'aw to mean "merely" which may or may not have a different word in na'vi.

3. fu's listed as a conjunction so I'd say it's ok.

I'd probably use ayoeng not ayoe, really Poe was referring to frapo when he said "we" so you could even use that if you want.

[Muzer]

One very artificial, and quite nonsensical, example of the ambiguity that I spoke of is the following sentence:

Ay-sute-l a plltxe ay-sawtute-ru tìng syuve-ti.

Is it "the people who speak to the skypeople give food" or "the people who speak give food to the skypeople"? Yes, I know this is very crude, but with adpositions, implied subjects/objects, genitives, the verb "lu" with its lack of endings or more complex clauses than "a", it can get much hairier in much more realistic scenarios. I'm just rubbish at making up examples

[kewnya txamew'itan]

One very artificial, and quite nonsensical, example of the ambiguity that I spoke of is the following sentence:

Ay-sute-l a plltxe ay-sawtute-ru tìng syuve-ti.

Is it "the people who speak to the skypeople give food" or "the people who speak give food to the skypeople"? Yes, I know this is very crude, but with adpositions, implied subjects/objects, genitives, the verb "lu" with its lack of endings or more complex clauses than "a", it can get much hairier in much more realistic scenarios. I'm just rubbish at making up examples

It can be, but in those situations it can be avoided using adpositions as you say (for example hu here).

So is "lu nì'aw unil mì unil fra'u a ayoengìl tse'a fu lam" the correct translation?

ayoengal (the a re-appears when case endings are applied)

I'm not sure I like the seem, really he means infer but we don't have a word for that but I might say "fu ayoengar lam" otherwise it's a bit strange.

[Muzer]

One very artificial, and quite nonsensical, example of the ambiguity that I spoke of is the following sentence:

Ay-sute-l a plltxe ay-sawtute-ru tìng syuve-ti.

Is it "the people who speak to the skypeople give food" or "the people who speak give food to the skypeople"? Yes, I know this is very crude, but with adpositions, implied subjects/objects, genitives, the verb "lu" with its lack of endings or more complex clauses than "a", it can get much hairier in much more realistic scenarios. I'm just rubbish at making up examples

It can be, but in those situations it can be avoided using adpositions as you say (for example hu here).

So is "lu nì'aw unil mì unil fra'u a ayoengìl tse'a fu lam" the correct translation?

ayoengal (the a re-appears when case endings are applied)

Ah, forgot about that, sorry!

I'm not sure I like the seem, really he means infer but we don't have a word for that but I might say "fu ayoengar lam" otherwise it's a bit strange.

Yeah, I think I agree, though it loses a bit of punch... hmm... any other similar words?


EDIT: I've got it: 'efu: perceive, feel, sense

What do you think of [...] a ayoengal tse'a fu 'efu: [...] that we see or feel

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Good spot, although it's possible that 'efu is only feel internal states. That said, for now at least it's probably fine.

[Muzer]

Sense sounds pretty external to me... I can't think of an internal use for sense actually (I sense sadness implies in someone else), though it could of course be a poor translation.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

All I remember is that I'm sure someone posted something from Frommer saying that na'vi split the English to be into three verbs, lu, tok (for location) and 'efu for internal states as in "I feel happy". It's possible I'm misremembering, and even if I'm not, now that I think about it, it's perfectly possible (and in fact seems quite likely) in this context for Frommer to have meant that it can work like that in addition to its other uses.

[Kì'eyawn]

All I remember is that I'm sure someone posted something from Frommer saying that na'vi split the English to be into three verbs, lu, tok (for location) and 'efu for internal states as in "I feel happy". It's possible I'm misremembering, and even if I'm not, now that I think about it, it's perfectly possible (and in fact seems quite likely) in this context for Frommer to have meant that it can work like that in addition to its other uses.

Karyu Pawl used 'efu for "I feel your love," but we also have it in 'efu nitram and 'efu ohakx, so i would say it is used for that third sense of "be," but not only that.