Er and ol

['itan ayvrrtepyä]

Kaltxì ma tsmukan,

I know the normal verb infixes very well (thanks to project ngaynume, much much praise) but im not quite understanding the infixes er and ol, or their combinations. from a latin stand point is er imperfect?

[Tirea Aean]

Kaltxì ma tsmukan,

I know the normal verb infixes very well (thanks to project ngaynume, much much praise) but im not quite understanding the infixes er and ol, or their combinations. from a latin stand point is er imperfect?

imperfective.

check out lesson 2B. thats the best explanation i have ever seen:

Spoiler: Prezi2B

[prezi]pmuschy9_rqy[/prezi]

ol and er have NOTHING to do with time.
am, ìm, ìy, ay are the ones having to do with time.

ol in that prezi with respect to the verb is hitting the wall.
er is going in a neverending circle.
thats waht those aspects are about.

the combinations are just going into that time period and inserting the aspect. the action ends in the past, present and future, or the action is ongoing in the past, present, and future. this can also be seen in the prezi. as the aspect moves across the timeline.

[Kemaweyan]

Kaltxì, ma tsmukan. oel ngati kameie.

-er- and -ol- in Na'vi mean continuous and perfect tenses. If those are just -er- or -ol-, those are present:

 Oe teraron.
 I'm hunting.

 Oe tolaron.
 I've hunted.

But if that's -arm-, -alm- or other, that means past continuous, past perfect etc. (time + aspect):

 Oe tarmaron.
 I was hunting.

 Oe talmaron.
 I had hunted.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

It is important to note that aspect (<er> and <ol>) is very subjective and so the same event could be described by one person using <ol> and another using <er>. Essentially, when described with <ol> the action is portrayed as being as single point whereas, if <er> is used, the action is spread over a region of time.

[Tirea Aean]

It is important to note that aspect (<er> and <ol>) is very subjective and so the same event could be described by one person using <ol> and another using <er>. Essentially, when described with <ol> the action is portrayed as being as single point whereas, if <er> is used, the action is spread over a region of time.

tho im not sure how "the same event could be described by one person using <ol> and another using <er>." but the rest I agree about and here is what a half second of googling came up with. (some of this is even new to me...)

The perfective aspect (abbreviated pfv), sometimes called the aoristic aspect,[1] is a grammatical aspect used to describe a situation viewed as a simple whole, whether that situation occurs in the past, present, or future. The perfective aspect is equivalent to the aspectual component of past perfective forms variously called "aorist", "preterite", and "simple past". Although the essence of the perfective is an event seen as a whole, a unit without internal structure, most languages which have a perfective use it for various similar semantic roles, such as momentary events and the onsets or completions of events, all of which are single points in time and thus have no internal structure. Other languages instead have separate momentane, inchoative, or cessative aspects for those roles, with or without a general perfective.
The perfective aspect is distinguished from the imperfective aspect, which presents an event as having internal structure (such as ongoing or habitual actions) [...]

The imperfective (abbreviated ipfv or more ambiguously impv) is a grammatical aspect used to describe a situation viewed with internal structure, such as ongoing, habitual, repeated, and similar semantic roles, whether that situation occurs in the past, present, or future. Although many languages have a general imperfective, others have distinct aspects for one or more of its various roles, such as progressive, habitual, and iterative aspects.
English, with its progressive verb forms but no general imperfective, is one of these.
The English progressive is used to describe ongoing events such as "The rain was beating down".
[...]
The imperfective aspect may be fused with the past tense, for a form traditionally called the imperfect. [...]

[kewnya txamew'itan]

It is important to note that aspect (<er> and <ol>) is very subjective and so the same event could be described by one person using <ol> and another using <er>. Essentially, when described with <ol> the action is portrayed as being as single point whereas, if <er> is used, the action is spread over a region of time.

tho im not sure how "the same event could be described by one person using <ol> and another using <er>."

Imagine two very similar situations that two different people experienced, yesterday one was eaten by a palulukan whilst hunting and the other was eaten after hunting:

trram oe teraron krr a palulukanìl oeti yom; trram oe tolaron krr a palulukanìl oeti yom

In both cases there, the action of hunting is the same but, due to other phrases around it one is described as a perfective and the other as an imperfective.

[Tirea Aean]

It is important to note that aspect (<er> and <ol>) is very subjective and so the same event could be described by one person using <ol> and another using <er>. Essentially, when described with <ol> the action is portrayed as being as single point whereas, if <er> is used, the action is spread over a region of time.

tho im not sure how "the same event could be described by one person using <ol> and another using <er>."

Imagine two very similar situations that two different people experienced, yesterday one was eaten by a palulukan whilst hunting and the other was eaten after hunting:

trram oe teraron krr a palulukanìl oeti yom; trram oe tolaron krr a palulukanìl oeti yom

In both cases there, the action of hunting is the same but, due to other phrases around it one is described as a perfective and the other as an imperfective.

due to what other phrases? the only single difference between those two sentences is the infix in taron.

I'm still not sure what point you're tryin to make here... er is er and ol is ol. with a single perspective on an event, i cannot see how er and ol could overlap. its one or the other. introduce a second, different perspective, then each perspective has ONE of these for its own...tho i think thats what you may be tryin to say...

[kewnya txamew'itan]

It is important to note that aspect (<er> and <ol>) is very subjective and so the same event could be described by one person using <ol> and another using <er>. Essentially, when described with <ol> the action is portrayed as being as single point whereas, if <er> is used, the action is spread over a region of time.

tho im not sure how "the same event could be described by one person using <ol> and another using <er>."

Imagine two very similar situations that two different people experienced, yesterday one was eaten by a palulukan whilst hunting and the other was eaten after hunting:

trram oe teraron krr a palulukanìl oeti yom; trram oe tolaron krr a palulukanìl oeti yom

In both cases there, the action of hunting is the same but, due to other phrases around it one is described as a perfective and the other as an imperfective.

due to what other phrases? the only single difference between those two sentences is the infix in taron.

I'm still not sure what point you're tryin to make here... er is er and ol is ol. with a single perspective on an event, i cannot see how er and ol could overlap. its one or the other. introduce a second, different perspective, then each perspective has ONE of these for its own...tho i think thats what you may be tryin to say...

Sorry, I meant that the second action (being eaten by the palulukan) not phrase has something to do with the description of the first action (the hunting) because the same action (the hunting which is unchanged in each situation) is described by a different aspect when seen from a different perspective; as you say though, each perspective could only really use one.