Just wanted to check myself here on this sentence.

[omängum fra'uti]

But again, for the community to use different terms than Paul is just introducing unnecessary complexity and confusion, and mainly dates back to the origins of learning the language, which had originally been highly learned through analysis and not communications.  While the language log mentioned "agentive, patientive and subjective" it did not mention what they were, so when people analyzing the language needed terms for the case endings they were finding, they picked close linguistic terms, and they stuck.

But not everything that was done in analyzing the language back then was correct, and errors have been corrected as they were addressed.

So why should terminology be any different?  Trying to hang on to two sets of terms, for whatever the reason, is just going to introduce unnecessary confusion, and most people won't care about the difference.  Most people coming here to learn Na'vi don't even know what agentive, patientive, or subjective are, let alone the even more obscure ergative, accusitive and nominitive.  At least the former can be somewhat reasoned out logically.  And sticking to any terms besides Paul's will always introduce two sets of terms.

[Muzer]

The point is, there's already tonnes of stuff (documents, programs, etc.) that use nominative/ergative/accusative/, so switching this late in the game to me doesn't really seem like a very good plan.


I mean, I am perfectly happy to switch, but only when everyone agrees it's a better idea (which is certainly not the case). I certainly won't go to the effort of changing all my stuff that already uses nominative/accusative/ergative, though, and I still don't actually remember the names of the new terms properly (damn you, subjective being 100% counter-intuitive!) - I currently remember it as "subjective, patientive and the other one" - so even if I do commit to changing, I (and I assume, plenty of other people) won't actually be able to use them without a great deal of fuss looking it up every time.

[omängum fra'uti]

Late in the game?

The language hasn't even been out for a year.  Avatar 2 and 3, presumably the next big commercial use of the language, is not due out for 4 years.  Most of the stuff kept up to date has been switched over to Frommer's terminology, and Frommer's blog will ALWAYS use his terminology, obviously.

It's never to late to fix a mistake.

[Muzer]

Sorry, maybe you're right. My problem still stands, however - I simply cannot remember the new system. Nominative, ergative, accusative, genitive, dative, topical - just rolls off the tongue for me. Not so with the other system. Is there a good way to remember it? This isn't remembering what the words are for (as long as I remember that I hate subjective because it's counter-intuitive, I can usually figure it out) - this is just outright remembering the words

[omängum fra'uti]

The only difference is the agentive, patientive, and subjective, and the words nicely describe where they fit in plain terms.

An agent is "one that acts or exerts power" (Or alternatively something that produces or is capable of producing an effect).  Transitive verbs are mostly always active things, so an agent is who is doing the active thing.
A patient is who gets operated on.
Intransitive verbs are often descriptions of something (Be X, standing) rather than something active, so you have the subject of the description.

[Tirea Aean]

yeah. this system really is not that hard to remember. basically what omängum just said.

• Transitive-agentive and patientive cases
  
  
  • Agent-does something (-l/-ìl)
  • Patient-gets tests/operation/stuff done to it (-it/-ti/-t)
• Intransitive-subjective case
  
  
  • Subjective-the subject. (no suffix)

['Oma Tirea]

yeah. this system really is not that hard to remember. basically what omängum just said.

• Transitive-agentive and patientive cases
  
  
  • Agent-does something (-l/-ìl)
  • Patient-gets tests/operation/stuff done to it (-it/-ti/-t)
• Intransitive-subjective case
  
  
  • Subjective-the subject. (no suffix)

...but how could fko explain a lone accusative?  Is something with an ergative case implied by context or is it incorrect?

E.g.: in Pot zamunge from the movie, would "ngal" be implied from context or...?

[Tirea Aean]

yeah. this system really is not that hard to remember. basically what omängum just said.

• Transitive-agentive and patientive cases
  
  
  • Agent-does something (-l/-ìl)
  • Patient-gets tests/operation/stuff done to it (-it/-ti/-t)
• Intransitive-subjective case
  
  
  • Subjective-the subject. (no suffix)

...but how could fko explain a lone accusative?  Is something with an ergative case implied by context or is it incorrect?

E.g.: in Pot zamunge from the movie, would "ngal" be implied from context or...?

dude im just battling for semantic consistency here. that is, you mean to say patientive instead of accusative and agentive instead of ergative.

but yes. pot zamunge is correct. its a command form. it is clearly implied by who the speaker is commanding that THAT person shall zamunge pot.

['Oma Tirea]

dude im just battling for semantic consistency here. that is, you mean to say patientive instead of accusative and agentive instead of ergative.

Ngaytxoa, still having to relearn the terms...somewhat...

[Tirea Aean]

Spoiler: offtopic

also, you claim:

Oel tì'omit virä fratsengur.

why not

Oel 'ompinit virä fratseng?

hrh yeah unity and consistency is good... now. back on topic:

has not the original question been answered?