I'm having problems identiying the -ERG and similar

[AuLekye'ung]

Kaltxi!

I've been having a lot of trouble understanding the topical, genitive, accusative, and all the rest.

Can anyone assist me in understanding which part of a sentence is what?

For instance: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

Or: Ean-a Ikran Tsw<ol>ayon ne na'ring.

I've just been having a lot of trouble with this, and it is really holding me back.

I mean, I can identify subjects, verbs, prepositions, but I can't quite get it.

Again, can anyone help me?

Irayo

[Will Txankamuse]

Try this post.

Will

[Hawnuyu atxen]

Just one thing:
The verb fly is not "tswayon", but "tswon" (<ay> is the future tense infix, so "tswayon" means will fly, and as i know you can't really combine it with <ol> [perfective])

[Carborundum]

First and foremost, it's crucial to understand that Nav'i is not English. Na'vi contains large amounts of grammatical mechanisms that don't exist in English, and the reverse applies too. English words to not inflect for things like ergative, accusative or topical cases, for example. Thus it is rather meaningless to look for these things in an English example sentence. The Na'vi sentence in your post is hardly any better, it doesn't have any of them either   (And nor should it, they are not always needed)
Let's start with something very basic:

Oe-l taron yerik-it
Me-ERG hunt hexapede-ACC
I hunt hexapede

The ergative case is on the word 'me' here, because it is used to identify who is performing the action (hunt). I.e. ergative suffix goes on the subject of a clause.
The Accusative case is instead used to mark who/what is the target of said action. Accusative goes on the object of a clause.
English does have genitive though. It's the suffix 's. Paul Frommer's language = Pawl-ä lì'fya. That's all there is to it, really. The genitive is probably the easiest to understand for an English speaker.

<ay> is the future tense infix, so "tswayon" means will fly, and as i know you can't really combine it with <ol> [perfective]

I believe you can. Tswolayon = will have flown. Although it's possible the aspect and tense infixes combine to something like <oly> or <oyl>.

Edit: Oh yeah, perhaps an explanation of why all these cases are needed is in order. They are needed because Na'vi has free word order. In English, subject and object are defined by their relative position within a clause, but in Na'vi the position of a word conveys (almost) no information. Therefore the ergative and accusative cases are used instead.

[Hawnuyu atxen]

You're right, but still... we don't know what would they combine to (possibilities, like what you said exists), and if not, than which'll go first...

[Carborundum]

You're right, but still... we don't know what would they combine to (possibilities, like what you said exists), and if not, than which'll go first...

True. It's probably best to avoid such constructs until we know more.

[Tsamsteu]

ok well, to the creator of this thread, although it was posted before that Na'vi is not like English, some aspects of the English language will assist you in learning these topical, genitive, accusatory, etc, markers. I will build off of what Carborundum posted and take your sentence for example.

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

In this sentence, there is a subject, verb, and object (excluding articles (since they dont exist in na'vi) and adjectives at the moment). The key is to figure out whether the object is a Direct Object or Indirect Object.

The fox jumped the dog. The subject is obviously the fox, and the object is obviously the dog. To determine whether the object is a direct object, you want to look at the verb and subject and say, "does the sentence answer who or what the subject "verbed" (in this case jumped)?" And since that question is answered in your sentence, the fox jumped what? The dog. This makes the dog the DIRECT OBJECT.

If the sentence was simply: The fox jumped. --> This sentence does not answer what or who the fox jumped, hence, there is no direct object. So the main idea i'm trying to present is that a direct object essentially takes on the ACCUSATORY CASE.

Now, if there is a direct object in a sentence, the SUBJECT of the sentence always takes on the ERGATIVE CASE; however, if there is no direct object, the noun does not need the ergative case marker.

For example: The fox jumped the dog. --> Fox would be ERG case, dog would be ACC case.

however, in the sentence: the fox jumped. --> No direct object, no ERG case needed for the subject.

The topical case is used when beginning a new idea, paragraph, etc and you want to stress the main subject of the sentence/idea.

For example, if i had been talking about a cat for 3 minutes, then started a new idea about this fox that jumped over the dog, i would give the fox the TOPICAL case.

Now, to put some of these concepts into NA'VI Examples:

I hunt.

Oe taron.  
(The sentence does not state what/who i hunt, so there is no direct object, so no ACC or ERG cases)

However, if i wanted to stress that "I" is the main subject for an upcoming sentence/story:

Oe-ri taron.
TOP
(the topical suffix -ri is added to "oe" to suggest "I" is now a main subject)

Oe-l taron palulukan-it.
ERG                   ACC
(the sentence answers: what/who do i hunt? I hunt the thanator, hence thanator (palulukan) receives the ACC suffix since it is the direct object, and since there is a direct object, i mark the subject with the ERG (giver of the verb) suffix.

There is also another case, called DATIVE, that relates to INDIRECT OBJECTS. An example would be:

I gave the book to you.

(I is the subject, book is the Indirect Object, since i'm "verbing" (giving) the book, and YOU is the INDIRECT OBJECT, what the Direct Object is being "verbed" (given) to. The indirect objects in na'vi take on the DATIVE case. Quick Example:

Oe-l nga-ru tskxe-t tìng.  ----> I give you a rock.

ERG    DAT     ACC

The rock is what is being given, hence it is the ACC case (Direct Object), I am the subject (hence it takes the ERG case), and the rock is being given TO YOU (hence, you is the dative case (INDIRECT object).

If you would like to study more on these infixes/inflections, i suggest you look at this pdf made by Taronyu:
http://content.learnnavi.org/taronyu/Inflections.pdf  

[AuLekye'ung]

Kaltxi!

Irayo to everyone who posted here to help me.  My understanding and ability to write Na'vi has increased exponentially from the explanations and links you put here.

Also, everywhere I've looked it has "tswayon" as fly.

Ngal oeru tolìng txan aytslamti.

[Kayrìlien]

Also, everywhere I've looked it has "tswayon" as fly.

It's been corrected in the newest version of Taronyu's dictionary; don't worry, I thought it was tswayon as well.

Kayrìlien