Links to actually useful documents?

Started by Makto ko!, December 22, 2010, 05:28:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kemaweyan

Yeah, because the verb sngä'i is intransitive :) And perhaps you should add an infix <ol> :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

MIPP

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 22, 2010, 09:03:43 AM
Yeah, because the verb sngä'i is intransitive :) And perhaps you should add an infix <ol> :)

True, I missed it because it was not my doubt  ;D

Another doubt, why shall we put the agentive when there is no direct object? E.g. Oe leyn - as there is no direct object, why shall we use the agentive?

I understand that sometimes we use the patientive and not the agentive, like: New oel futa nga za'u, taweyk plltxe fìli'fyat. - The subject in the second clause is implicit (probably not the best example).
Na'vi for beginners | Dict-Na'vi.com

Hufwe lìng io pay, nìfnu slä nìlaw.
Loveless, Act IV.

Kamean

#22
You may also reed this  document. It  seems useful for beginner. ;)
Tse'a ngal ke'ut a krr fra'uti kame.


Kemaweyan

Quote from: MIPP on December 22, 2010, 09:20:17 AM
Another doubt, why shall we put the agentive when there is no direct object? E.g. Oe leyn - as there is no direct object, why shall we use the agentive?

In this example we shouldn't use agentive. But if we have subordinate clause with transitive verb and subject of it (the object would be the word which this clause is related to), then we also should use agentive:

 Oer sunu vur a ngolop ngal.
 I like the story which you created.

In the clause ngolop ngal we haven't an explicit object with -ti, but nevertheless use agentive. The object is clear from the context (vur), but we can omit it. So in the sentence we have agentive, but have no patientive :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

MIPP

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 22, 2010, 10:02:27 AM
Quote from: MIPP on December 22, 2010, 09:20:17 AM
Another doubt, why shall we put the agentive when there is no direct object? E.g. Oe leyn - as there is no direct object, why shall we use the agentive?

In this example we shouldn't use agentive. But if we have subordinate clause with transitive verb and subject of it (the object would be the word which this clause is related to), then we also should use agentive:

 Oer sunu vur a ngolop ngal.
 I like the story which you created.

In the clause ngolop ngal we haven't an explicit object with -ti, but nevertheless use agentive. The object is clear from the context (vur), but we can omit it. So in the sentence we have agentive, but have no patientive :)

Hmmm... I am trying to understand it. Could you provide another example?
Na'vi for beginners | Dict-Na'vi.com

Hufwe lìng io pay, nìfnu slä nìlaw.
Loveless, Act IV.

Makto ko!

This is all so confusing, I think I will stick with the regular cases of where to use agentive and patientive and save 'when not to use these cases' for later, haha. But I have to admit even just today I have improved thanks you all, having not even brief knowledge of it at the beginning of the week!

~ ta Makto a' Eywa ngahu ma aysmuk!
old gallery link?id=470[/img]
~~


Project Neytiri: Join the movement here!
Are you a beginner? Then this document might help you to understand! (document by MIPP)

Sireayä mokri

In such cases it's all about context, really.
When the mirror speaks, the reflection lies.

Kemaweyan

Quote from: MIPP on December 22, 2010, 10:08:25 AM
Hmmm... I am trying to understand it. Could you provide another example?

Ok. An example from Pawl:

  Fpole' ayngal oer fìtxan nìftxavang a 'upxaret stolawm oel.
  I heard the message which you sent me so passionately.

Here you can see two words with agentive and only one in patientive. There is free word order in Na'vi, so we can change this sentence to understand it easier:

  Oel stolawm 'upxaret a fpole' ayngal oer fìtxan nìftxavang.

There is agentive ayngal and no patientive in subordinate clause fpole' ayngal oer fìtxan nìftxavang. We use patientive with 'upxare because it is an object of a transitive verb fpe'.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

MIPP

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 22, 2010, 10:26:25 AM
Quote from: MIPP on December 22, 2010, 10:08:25 AM
Hmmm... I am trying to understand it. Could you provide another example?

Ok. An example from Pawl:

  Fpole' ayngal oer fìtxan nìftxavang a 'upxaret stolawm oel.
  I heard the message which you sent me so passionately.

Here you can see two words with agentive and only one in patientive. There is free word order in Na'vi, so we can change this sentence to understand it easier:

  Oel stolawm 'upxaret a fpole' ayngal oer fìtxan nìftxavang.

There is agentive ayngal and no patientive in subordinate clause fpole' ayngal oer fìtxan nìftxavang. We use patientive with 'upxare because it is an object of a transitive verb fpe'.

I think I got it. When the direct object is implicit, then we may not write/say it, however we can use the agentive. AM I thinking correctly?
Na'vi for beginners | Dict-Na'vi.com

Hufwe lìng io pay, nìfnu slä nìlaw.
Loveless, Act IV.

Kemaweyan

Yeah. We also can say my first example as

  Oer sunu vur a fìvurit ngolop ngal.
  I like the story which you created.

But that word is optional and usually omitted :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 22, 2010, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: kewnya txamew'itan on December 22, 2010, 08:35:17 AM
You only ever use -l if there's a direct object marked with -ti/-t or -it

Almost :) We must use this if there is transitive verb with <eyk>, but without a direct object:

  Pol oeru teykolaron.
  He caused me to hunt.

Besides we must use agentive with transitive verbs even if there's no explicit object:

  Oer sunu vur a ngolop ngal.
  I like the story which you created.

Almost :) whilst I did forget antipassive causatives, your second example is I believe more properly written "vur a ngolop ngal tsat" as, IIRC, we have no canonical examples of relative clauses where the thing being attributed to is not the subject of the relative clause and is no stated explicitly.

Quote from: Makto ko! on December 22, 2010, 10:08:35 AM
This is all so confusing, I think I will stick with the regular cases of where to use agentive and patientive and save 'when not to use these cases' for later, haha. But I have to admit even just today I have improved thanks you all, having not even brief knowledge of it at the beginning of the week!

~ ta Makto a' Eywa ngahu ma aysmuk!

The basic rule is that the subject of a verb takes the agentive -l whenever you have a patientive direct object (although, as has been discussed, there are exceptions).
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

Kemaweyan

Quote from: kewnya txamew'itan on December 22, 2010, 10:48:51 AM
we have no canonical examples of relative clauses where the thing being attributed to is not the subject of the relative clause and is no stated explicitly.

See my previous post where I wrote a sentence from Pawl's message :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

MIPP

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 22, 2010, 10:43:55 AM
Yeah. We also can say my first example as

  Oer sunu vur a fìvurit ngolop ngal.
  I like the story which you created.

But that word is optional and usually omitted :)

Thank you ma Kemaweyan  :D
Na'vi for beginners | Dict-Na'vi.com

Hufwe lìng io pay, nìfnu slä nìlaw.
Loveless, Act IV.

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 22, 2010, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: kewnya txamew'itan on December 22, 2010, 10:48:51 AM
we have no canonical examples of relative clauses where the thing being attributed to is not the subject of the relative clause and is no stated explicitly.

See my previous post where I wrote a sentence from Pawl's message :)

Hmmm... I could have sworn it was the case. Ngaytxoa.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's