Is this correct? if not explain why please :)

[kewnya txamew'itan]

when you wrote "na oe lu" (like me is), is this proper sentence structure?
Or rather is there an instance where the order would change?

Word order is free although it seems to be reasonably common to put the verb last and is a habit a few people got into early on when a very large proportion of our corpus was SOV, as it is, it prevents it from sounding too English and doesn't put undue emphasis on "oe" (the first position is the focus whilst the second provides a lesser, secondary emphasis).

What is "-e" at the end of "yawn"?

Yawne is the correct word for beloved. I don't know yawn (it's not in the dictionary).

Yawn isn't a word, before we got confirmation about yawne, it was hypothesised that yawn was a verb for to love, this was wrong.

[Na’ringHufwe]

Irayo. 

Can someone also please explain in what case would "Oe" (I, me) have an "L" in it, such as "Oe-l?"
And what is its function? or rather how is it used?

Irayo ma oeyä eylan.

[Tirea Aean]

Irayo. 

Can someone also please explain in what case would "Oe" (I, me) have an "L" in it, such as "Oe-l?"
And what is its function? or rather how is it used?

Irayo ma oeyä eylan.

when the verb I am doing has an object:

I see you
oe-l nga-ti kame

I see(physically) a thanator
Oe-l tse'a palulukan-it

Thanator sees me
palulukan-ìl tse'a oe-t


I eat food
Oe-l yom syuve-t

-l and -ti USUALLY travel in pairs...wherever there is a -l/-ìl there is a -t(I)/-it, but Not necessarily always the case the other way around...note:

oe tsun ts<iv>e'a palulukan-it
I can see a/the thanator.

there is no -l on oe, but there is still a -it on palulukan...

[Carborundum]

-l/-ìl is the so called ergative case, which marks the subject of a transitive verb. The direct object of the same verb takes the accusative case, -t/-it/-ti. An indirect object instead takes the dative case, -r/-ur/-ru.
For example, in oel ngati kameie the subject is oe and the object is nga, so they take the ergative and the accusative cases, respectively.
In ngal tìng tskxeti oer nga is the subject, tskxe is the direct object, and oe is the indirect object.

[Tirea Aean]

-l/-ìl is the so called ergative case, which marks the subject of a transitive verb. The direct object of the same verb takes the accusative case, -t/-it/-ti. An indirect object instead takes the dative case, -r/-ur/-ru.
For example, in oel ngati kameie the subject is oe and the object is nga, so they take the ergative and the accusative cases, respectively.
In ngal tìng tskxeti oer nga is the subject, tskxe is the direct object, and oe is the indirect object.

A somewhat confusing way to explain it, but valid nonetheless...NiaN does a decent job with explaining the noun cases.

[Na’ringHufwe]

Irayo ma Tirea Aean si Carborundum.

Although im not an English expert (Grammar etc) I think I am understanding.
I appreciate you all taking the time to help explain things to me.

Also, how can I say something like: "I Will/shall remember you."

Irayo ma oeya eylan.
Eywa ngahu.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

object

Agent's a bad choice of words there seeing as agent is another term for the subject of a transitive verb contrasting with the patient (direct object), argument would have been a better word.

[Tirea Aean]

object

Agent's a bad choice of words there seeing as agent is another term for the subject of a transitive verb contrasting with the patient (direct object), argument would have been a better word.

Which is why I called it confusing.

[Carborundum]

object

Agent's a bad choice of words there seeing as agent is another term for the subject of a transitive verb contrasting with the patient (direct object), argument would have been a better word.

Fair enough. Changed it to something hopefully less confusing  

[Tirea Aean]

Fair enough. Changed it to something hopefully less confusing  

HRH I like it haha yeah thats not confusing...it just kinda says that the dude doing the seeing cant be a chick XD im kidding...I totally get it haha

[Na’ringHufwe]

Also, Is this correct? if not what am I missing?

Kawtu tsun kar nga kame.

(Noone can teach you to see.)

Correct?

[omängum fra'uti]

That looks like it's just a literal translation of the English, and even then the English would be "Nobody can teach you see".  If you think that sounds strange and ungrammatical, the Na'vi is 10x worse there.

First, for "nobody can" you'd need "Kawtu ke tsun" - You're expressing a negative concept, so the verb needs to be negative.  Na'vi loves double negatives.

Next, the verb you use with tsun is always subjunctive, so kar becomes kivar.  And the person being taught is the indirect object of the teaching, so they need the dative case "ngar" or "ngaru".  Finally, "teach to see" is a little bit idiomatic in English, you'd want to say "Teach so that you see", so you'd want fte.  And with fte, the verb following also must be subjunctive so "kame" becomes "kivame".

So the end result would be...

Kawtu ke tsun kivar ngaru fte kivame.

[Dreamlight]

Yeah, I looked at that and was wondering if there should be a "fte" or something in there.  Also I was thinking (but was not sure) that it should have been "kivame".  Na'vi verbs are a bit tricky in that there is no infinitive per se, but the -iv- infix seems to be used for a lot of different verb constructions.

[Na’ringHufwe]

Ok im going to use this thread I made for continuous questions.
I greatly appreciate all of your time and explinations to help me better understand Na'vi.

Im going to try and form sentences, until I can finally grasp it. Please correct me on every mistake.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I want to go outside today." 
Oel wrrpa new kä fítrr.

Is this correct?

[Tirea Aean]

Ok im going to use this thread I made for continuous questions.
I greatly appreciate all of your time and explinations to help me better understand Na'vi.

Im going to try and form sentences, until I can finally grasp it. Please correct me on every mistake.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I want to go outside today." 
Oel wrrpa new kä fítrr.

Is this correct?

oe new kivä wrrpa fìtrr
fìtrr new oe kivä wrrpa
new oe fìtrr wrrpa kivä

yeah i believe that is correct, minus the -l on oe, and also the different word orders I posted plus other similar unmentioned word orders. I like it.

I see why you put oel instead of oe, but you are clearly using the short form of oel new futa kivä wrrpa fìtrr...which is oe new kivä wrrpa fìtrr. Of course these last two have a very English word order.

[Na’ringHufwe]

Thanks Tirea.

Could you explain the "Kivä"
Irayo

[Tirea Aean]

Thanks Tirea.

Could you explain the "Kivä"
Irayo

Allow NiaN to explain:

5.3 Modal Verbs

There are three modal verbs in Na'vi: zene must, to have to, tsun can, to be able to, and new to
want. You cannot have a direct object with must or can, so when using these verbs the subject
never takes an ergative ending:

I must go.                     Oe zene k<iv>ä.             Never oe-l zene kivä
You can go.                   Nga tsun k<iv>ä.            Never nga-l tsun kivä

New has the exact same form, but it can also take a direct object (you can want
"something"). This leads to a less common, but equally valid form:

I want to go                    Oe-l new futa k<iv>ä.
I want you to go away      Oe-l new futa nga kä neto.

Futa has no literal translation, it's just there as a place holder: In the first sentence above,
you want "something" and that something is "to go." More about futa in chapter eight.

[Muzer]

NiaN doesn't really explain the <iv> infix until after that point, but basically, where (and ONLY where) you have a modal verb - zene, tsun or new (I think there MIGHT be more, but I'm not sure), you put the second part of the sentence (with the ordinary verb) straight after it, but you must put the <iv> infix in the verb, otherwise you might get horribly confused when you swapped the word order around.

The examples from NiaN are good ones though.


Remember this can only be done with modal verbs - for anything else you must use "futa" or "fwa", which are very poweful words that basically turn a whole clause into a subject or an object. You can read about these later on in Na'vi in a Nutshell (the many faces of fì'u, I believe the chapter is called)