Plurals

[Nekxi]

I just want to make sure that I get this right...

There are three different prefixes to make a plural with and me+ pxe+ and ay+ and they can fit in front of every noun, but they all mean a different thing.

mehelku would be two homes
pxehelku is three homes
and ayhelku is more than three homes

I'm sorry if this is a very stupid question, but I just want to make sure that I'm getting it. Besides, just typing this makes me remember.

Irayo

[Will Txankamuse]

ay- is simply a plural number of homes.  So it could be used for more than three, but could also be used if the number was unknown.  It also wouldn't be invalid using ay- for two or three e.g. I have 'a pair of socks', or 'some socks'... both valid

Will

[wm.annis]

It also wouldn't be invalid using ay- for two or three

Why not?

[Will Txankamuse]

It also wouldn't be invalid using ay- for two or three

Why not?

Lu oeru aynari
I have eyes

This sentence is correct, even though I have two eyes.

Will

[wm.annis]

Lu oeru aynari
I have eyes

This sentence is correct, even though I have two eyes.

On what evidence do you assert this is correct?  If you said the equivalent in Homeric Greek — a language with a functioning dual number — the statement would be gruesome.

[Fnua Atxkxe]

I thought a pair of something was using the me+ prefix like menari meaning two eyes or a pair of eyes and mun prefix for two of something that are not a pair? Or do you mean you can use ay+ when you do not wan't to be specific about the number? I've never heard of that. Oe lu skxawng, Oe tsap'alute

[wm.annis]

I thought a pair of something was using the me+ prefix like menari meaning two eyes or a pair of eyes and mun prefix for two of something that are not a pair?

The dual is just used for two of something.  It might be a natural pair (like eyes), but it doesn't have to be.  In the film Eytukan uses the dual to refer to Jake and Grace, mefot yìm bind them.

There is no mun- prefix.

[Fnua Atxkxe]

There is no mun prefix? But I read it here ages ago http://forum.learnnavi.org/prefixes-infixes-and-suffixes/easy-guide-to-the-suffixes-infixes-and-prefixes-of-na'vi/. Is this info wrong then? I would've thought someone would have noticed before now.

[wm.annis]

Is this info wrong then?

I'm afraid so.  I didn't realize it was still stickied.  I'll see if we can do something about that.

[Will Txankamuse]

Hmm okay I don't know Homeric Greek so I'll accede to your perspective on that.  I'll ask some native Arabic speaking friends tomorrow whether they would have to use the Arabic dual form for my sentence or whether plural would be okay, but sounds like something we might need clarification on before saying either is right.

I would say that 'do you have eyes?' would be aynari though, because the number of eyes is unknown at the time of the question (e.g. you might be talking to an Ikran, which has four).

Will

[Fnua Atxkxe]

I'm afraid so.  I didn't realize it was still stickied.  I'll see if we can do something about that.

Facepalm! Now I have to unlearn that  Irayo for pointing that out, I could've gone along with that for a while

[wm.annis]

I would say that 'do you have eyes?' would be aynari though, because the number of eyes is unknown at the time of the question (e.g. you might be talking to an Ikran, which has four).

Sure, if you truly have no idea at all how many of something there are, the plural is a good bet.  But in a language with a fully productive dual and trial, I cannot imagine attributing literal aynari to a human being as anything but a terrible error of genetics.

[Lrrtoksì nìhawng]

Would saying something like, Oel tse'a mune mefa'lit be considered redundant then?

I've been trying to translate the Twelve Days of Christmas song. This is important to me. 

[Will Txankamuse]

for those interested still in this topic, Frommer provided me with a bit more info:

The dual forms are expected with things that naturally come in pairs. So if you're talking about your eyes, ears, feet, or hands, you should use those forms. "My eyes" is therefore "oeyä menari," not "oeyä aynari." (I know a little Hebrew, and I think that's the case in Modern Hebrew as well.) But what if you wanted to say, "Many eyes were staring at him"? There I'd use the regular plural; "many two eyes" doesn't make sense. (But I should ask my Israeli friends what happens in that case in Hebrew.)

I agree that to say "I have two cars," the dual shouldn't be enforced.

Q: How many children do you have? (not using dual, because I don't know the answer)

A: I have two.

Q: How old are they? (now are you using the dual for 'they', or can you use the plural?)

As to pronouns, your hypothetical conversation is right on the beam: Once you've established that there are two kids, you should use the dual form.

A useful guideline is this: If it's natural to say "both" in English, then it's likely you should use the dual in Na'vi. In the case of your conversation, the last speaker could have said, "How old are they both?" So s/he would probably use "mefo" for "they."

I myself have trouble remembering to use the dual form when two people are involved, especially in the first person. One thing I've found that helps is that if I can substitute "we two" or "the two of us" or "you and I" for "we," then I know I should use the dual form. Same for the second person forms ("you two") and third person forms ("those two").

Will

[Lrrtoksì nìhawng]

Ma Will, this is perfect! Cookie for you! 

[wm.annis]

Ma Will, can you put a copy of that also in the Language Updates sub-forum?