Na'vi equivalent to Trust?

[ShadowedSin]

I've been trying to figure out how to say you trust someone.

And I've been scouring the dictionary and I can't find something similar, I even considered using the word faith.

What is the closest thing in Na'vi that implies the same terminology as the word, "Trust"

[Skxawng]

I believe trust is on the list of words to be created by Frommer. Depending on the context Oel spaw ngati might work if you're responding to one's information.  oe sayi fwa nga pive'un   might work in a situation where someone is asking you to do something or making a descision.

[omängum fra'uti]

I believe trust is on the list of words to be created by Frommer. Depending on the context Oel spaw ngati might work if you're responding to one's information.  oe sayi fwa nga pive'un   might work in a situation where someone is asking you to do something or making a descision.

Second there would correctly be "Oe sayi fìkem a nga pive'un".

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì, ma tsmuk.  As has already been said, we are waiting for a specific word from Karyu Pawl.  In the meantime, i will add that you could also say Oel spaw futa ngal oeru ke seykayi tìsraw.

[ShadowedSin]

Thanks.

I've been running an Avatar Rp dealing with interactions of the RDA and Tipani Clan. And part of my job on the side has been adding a few easy to use phrases in Na'vi. What you've given is a good start, I'm planning on learning the language a bit more as I work on my own Con lang.

I'll probably use something to the affect of, I believe in you. And then the opposite

Oeru spaw mingaur - I believe in you.

Course I could be doing this incorrectly and I might have to state "I have belief in you".

[Rangtsulfätu]

Oeru spaw mingaur - I believe in you.

Don't you mean: Oel spaw mì ngat / Oel spaw ngatimì?

You can't have two datives in a clause. Also the dative on nga becomes -ru since nga ends in a vowel.
In = mì and when it precedes a noun it can't be attached to it.

[ShadowedSin]

Since belief is being given, in fact would it not be Oel spaw mi ngaru?

[Rangtsulfätu]

Since belief is being given, in fact would it not be Oel spaw mi ngaru?

That would translate as I believe in to you.

I'm not an expert in this language, but i think Oel spaw ngaru may work.

[ShadowedSin]

Do not fret, there are others who might chime in and assist.

So it could either bet Oel spaw ngaru or Oel spaw ngatimi.

[Hawnuyu atxen]

"Oel spaw ngaru" would mean something like "i believe for you", but in a sense of "i believe, so you'll have my beliving", at least i think so...

"Oel spaw ngati"... i'd say this is something, what na'vi would say to Eywa, not in the sense of the english "i believe you"...

The mì-version also wouldn't work, since it would be funny if someone said "i believe in you" whilst being in a palulukan


I'd say maybe "Oeru tìspaw lu ngane", though this too would be hardly good too...


And please don't be mad at me, i really want to know if my "i think this isn't correct" things are right at all...

[ShadowedSin]

I guess the question is, why is the "mi" adiposition form incorrect?

[Hawnuyu atxen]

I guess the question is, why is the "mi" adiposition form incorrect?

The mì-version also wouldn't work, since it would be funny if someone said "i believe in you" whilst being in a palulukan Wink

That's why i gave this example.


Oel spaw ngatimì.
I believe you (like in God), and i'm in you.

[ShadowedSin]

Alrighty so the adipositions are for literal locations?

And reading Tigermind's post I think I'll extend the sentence so that it's more specific to the meaning I'm trying to convey.

"Oel spaw futa ngal ke kayavuk si oeru."

[Hawnuyu atxen]

At least i think so...i can be wrong of course.

And reading Tigermind's post I think I'll extend the sentence so that it's more specific to the meaning I'm trying to convey.

"Oel spaw futa ngal ke kayavuk si oeru."

Just two things:
Verbs derived with si are always intransitive, so drop the l on "nga", and in these verbs the infixes go to the verb parts, here to si, so:

"Oel spaw futa nga ke kavuk sayi oeru."

[ShadowedSin]

Aha, I knew I had missed something!

So the opposite!

Oel ke spaw futa kea nga kayavuk si oeru!

Aka, I do NOT believe you will be betray me.

[Hawnuyu atxen]

Both "Oel spaw futa nga ke kavuk sayi oeru." and "Oel ke spaw futa nga kavuk sayi oeru." are good.

Oel ke spaw futa kea nga kayavuk si oeru!

I think you wanted to say "Oel ke spaw futa nga ke kavuk sayi oeru.", but that would mean "i don't think you won't betray me" (i believe that you will betray me).

If i'm not right, "kea" here still isn't correct, since the phrase has an "a" in it (fì'u-t-a = futa).

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I guess the question is, why is the "mi" adiposition form incorrect?

The mì-version also wouldn't work, since it would be funny if someone said "i believe in you" whilst being in a palulukan Wink

That's why i gave this example.


Oel spaw ngatimì.
I believe you (like in God), and i'm in you.

Right decision wrong explanation (partly).

For one thing, you cannot have an adposition and case because they behave in the same way.

Secondly, mì refers solely to position being in or on something, to believe in something is very idiomatic and cannot be translated literally.

Both "Oel spaw futa nga ke kavuk sayi oeru." and "Oel ke spaw futa nga kavuk sayi oeru." are good.

Oel ke spaw futa kea nga kayavuk si oeru!

I think you wanted to say "Oel ke spaw futa nga ke kavuk sayi oeru.", but that would mean "i don't think you won't betray me" (i believe that you will betray me).

If i'm not right, "kea" here still isn't correct, since the phrase has an "a" in it (fì'u-t-a = futa).

Again right but wrong reason. Kea is wrong because it changes teh meaning to "I don't believe that not you will betray me" which, given the na'vi rules on double negatives is a grammatical nightmare.

And reading Tigermind's post I think I'll extend the sentence so that it's more specific to the meaning I'm trying to convey.

"Oel spaw futa ngal ke kayavuk si oeru."

Tigermind's translation works (if you take the -l off nga) but the negative would not be as you gave it but would just remove the ke: oel spaw futa nga kayavuk sivi oeru

[Hawnuyu atxen]

At least i'm trying

And reading Tigermind's post I think I'll extend the sentence so that it's more specific to the meaning I'm trying to convey.

"Oel spaw futa ngal ke kayavuk si oeru."

Tigermind's translation works (if you take the -l off nga) but the negative would not be as you gave it but would just remove the ke: oel spaw futa nga kayavuk si oeru
[/quote]

Still, it would be "kavuk sayi" and i don't see why should we remove ke from it...
(shorter version: are my two attempts before your post correct? )

[ShadowedSin]

I had a sentence a while back and from what I garned from fru'ati.

Double negation works in that you negate the verb and then the object of the verb.

Oel "ke" spaw futa nga ke kavuk sayi oeru < Placing Ke in front of "spaw" does not make sense because that negates belief.

So > "Oel spaw futa ngal ke kavuk sayi oeru" > can I please a full reason as to why this is incorrect?

But for the opposite, "Nga kavuk sayi oeru"

[Hawnuyu atxen]

So > Oel spaw futa ngal ke kayavuk sayi oeru > can I please a full reason as to why this is incorrect?

To be honest (aside the fact that "kavuk si" is intransitive (no -l on nga) and the infix goes (only) to si-> "kavuk sayi") i don't understand it's impropriety neither...