Phone message

[Vrrtak]

So this is my first big attempt to translate something into Na'vi and I wanted to make sure I got it right.

Anyway this is what I got:
Kaltxì fi'u Äleksì-yä mokrilìm. Oe ketsun pängkxo set. Rutxe tìng nga-yä tstxo sì 'upxare ulte oe payängkxo ye'rin. Irayo ulte Eywa ngahu.

Just a basic 'you've reached my phone, I can't talk, leave a message' kind of thing. Please point out any mistakes I've made, cause I'm still learnin' and find makin' mistakes is sometimes the best way to do so.

Irayo

[NeotrekkerZ]

Here are a few things I noticed:

Kaltxì fì'u lu Äleksìyä mokrilìm. Oe ke tsun pivängkxo set. Rutxe tìng ngeyä tstxot sì 'upxaret ulte oe payängkxo ye'rin. Irayo ulte Eywa ngahu.

It's a matter of preference really, but you also have oe pìyängkxo as an optional alternative to oe payängkxo ye'rin.

The Rutxe tìng bugs me a little as I want to put the subjunctive in tìng even though we don't have an official rule for it.  I would probably just change that part to just Tivìng .

Let me know if any of the corrections are confusing.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

payängkxo ye'rin looks strange to me, I'd probably go with pìyankxo, and probably drop the ye'rin.

And, I agree with neo, tivìng would probably be better but I think you should still keep the rutxe.

[Vrrtak]

Irayo you guys are very helpful.

The corrections themselves aren't confusing. But, if you wouldn't mind, maybe you could explain the reasons behind the corrections so I know what not to do next time.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Ok, I'll go through them.

1. You got the vowel wrong apparently, simple spelling error.

2. You dropped the lu, you just said "this alex's mobile" with no is.

3. ke isn't a prefix.

4. Modals are always followed by a subjunctive so pängkxo has to take <iv>

5. The genitive of nga is ngeyä not ngayä, also the hyphen would just be there to mark morpheme boundaries, if you're not using it on most suffices, don't use it on -yä.

6. tstxo is being left, it is the object and must take the accusative case.

7. As above but with 'upxare

As for the other two, the <ay> and ye'rìn look strange because we also have the infix <ìy> which does the same job as them both a lot more easily.

The other one is a bit more complicated and is a bit difficult to explain.

[Tsamsiyu92]

In english, double negatives are considered slangy and informal, however, in Na'vi they're required.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

In english, double negatives are considered slangy and informal, however, in Na'vi they're required.

Where do we need/have used a double negative?

The only negated verb is "oe ke tsun" and in that case the double negative wouldn't really work.

[Tsamsiyu92]

^I don't know, just saying what a frommer-letter said

Maybe: Oe ke tsun ke pivängkxo set.

[NeotrekkerZ]

The double negative appears more with other words that are "negative" by themselves.

Example:  In English you say I never go but in Na'vi if you just literally translate it like Oe kawkrr kä it would be wrong; you need to throw in a "ke" there:  Oe ke kä kawkrr.  This apply to any kind of "negative" word AFAIK (no-one, nothing, etc).

[Kä'eng]

the <ay> and ye'rìn look strange because we also have the infix <ìy> which does the same job as them both a lot more easily.

Oe ke mllte fì'ur. -ìy- is for immediate future. If one never left the house so anyone leaving a phone message would get an answer within minutes, "pìyängkxo" would be justified, but I suspect that's not the case

Note that Frommer himself has used -ay- plus ye'rìn: "Sìlpey oe, layu oeru ye'rìn sìltsana fmawn a tsun oe ayngaru tivìng."

[kewnya txamew'itan]

^I don't know, just saying what a frommer-letter said

Maybe: Oe ke tsun ke pivängkxo set.

That's not how double negatives work.

The double negative works by, if you negate a noun in one clause, then that clause's verb must also be negated.

Likewise, I'm not sure under exactly what circumstances, but not I think with pronouns or demonstratives, if the verb is negated then the noun must be.

pìvängkxo is in a different clause from the tsun and isn't affected by its negation, in fact, in na'vi I believe that double negative would behave similarly to English and imply that you are unable to not chat and can, in fact, only chat.

the <ay> and ye'rìn look strange because we also have the infix <ìy> which does the same job as them both a lot more easily.

Oe ke mllte fì'ur. -ìy- is for immediate future. If one never left the house so anyone leaving a phone message would get an answer within minutes, "pìyängkxo" would be justified, but I suspect that's not the case

Note that Frommer himself has used -ay- plus ye'rìn: "Sìlpey oe, layu oeru ye'rìn sìltsana fmawn a tsun oe ayngaru tivìng."

Fair enough I guess.

[Tsamsiyu92]

the <ay> and ye'rìn look strange because we also have the infix <ìy> which does the same job as them both a lot more easily.

Oe ke mllte fì'ur. -ìy- is for immediate future. If one never left the house so anyone leaving a phone message would get an answer within minutes, "pìyängkxo" would be justified, but I suspect that's not the case

Note that Frommer himself has used -ay- plus ye'rìn: "Sìlpey oe, layu oeru ye'rìn sìltsana fmawn a tsun oe ayngaru tivìng."

I am avare that frommer wrote that last sentence, but shouldn't a tsnì follow sìlpey? Why doesn't it?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I don't think we have a rule as of yet as to why it wouldn't. Either Frommer has a rule he hasn't told us yet, or it's possible he forgot it.

Alternatively, if we want to guess the rule, I believe that the only examples we've had of tsnì and sìlpey have always been "sìlpey tsnì" which you couldn't do with the oe after sìlpey, possibly this word order is what allows for the tsnì to be dropped.