Plural possessive pronouns

[Fmawntu]

I'm stumbling through translating Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States, and this is what I've got so far, at least as far as the title goes:

"Aysawtuteyä 'Okvur leYu.E.Sey."

My question was regarding "People's" specifically: is how I wrote it correct or is there a different way to write plural forms of possessive pronouns that wasn't covered in NiaN?

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I'm stumbling through translating Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States, and this is what I've got so far, at least as far as the title goes:

"Aysawtuteyä 'Okvur leYu.E.Sey."

My question was regarding "People's" specifically: is how I wrote it correct or is there a different way to write plural forms of possessive pronouns that wasn't covered in NiaN?

I think you are correct on Aysawtuteyä. However, the Ay+ is optional in this case, and you may drop it if you wish (You will notice I have retained in my 'name' as well, but it is more normal to drop it). That would give you Sawtuteyä

le- is not 'productive'. I.e., it is reserved for words created by Paul Frommer, and is not for general use. Instead, you use -a- tacked on to the word you need as an adjective, on the side facing the noun. You could write  'Okvur aYu.E.Sey or perhaps Yu.E.Sey a'okvur (which  I like). The only reservation I have here, is I am not 100 percent sure you can make a noun into an adjective, but I think with -a- you can.

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

I'm stumbling through translating Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States, and this is what I've got so far, at least as far as the title goes:

"Aysawtuteyä 'Okvur leYu.E.Sey."

My question was regarding "People's" specifically: is how I wrote it correct or is there a different way to write plural forms of possessive pronouns that wasn't covered in NiaN?

I think you are correct on Aysawtuteyä. However, the Ay+ is optional in this case, and you may drop it if you wish (You will notice I have retained in my 'name' as well, but it is more normal to drop it). That would give you Sawtuteyä

le- is not 'productive'. I.e., it is reserved for words created by Paul Frommer, and is not for general use. Instead, you use -a- tacked on to the word you need as an adjective, on the side facing the noun. You could write  'Okvur aYu.E.Sey or perhaps Yu.E.Sey a'okvur (which  I like). The only reservation I have here, is I am not 100 percent sure you can make a noun into an adjective, but I think with -a- you can.

I'm not sure that a noun can be made into an adjective either but if it can then the le- prefix must be used. The attributive -a- is only for use on adjectives.

-Txonä Rolyu

[Fmawntu]

Hey cool! I got something right!

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I'm stumbling through translating Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States, and this is what I've got so far, at least as far as the title goes:

"Aysawtuteyä 'Okvur leYu.E.Sey."

My question was regarding "People's" specifically: is how I wrote it correct or is there a different way to write plural forms of possessive pronouns that wasn't covered in NiaN?

I think you are correct on Aysawtuteyä. However, the Ay+ is optional in this case, and you may drop it if you wish (You will notice I have retained in my 'name' as well, but it is more normal to drop it). That would give you Sawtuteyä

le- is not 'productive'. I.e., it is reserved for words created by Paul Frommer, and is not for general use. Instead, you use -a- tacked on to the word you need as an adjective, on the side facing the noun. You could write  'Okvur aYu.E.Sey or perhaps Yu.E.Sey a'okvur (which  I like). The only reservation I have here, is I am not 100 percent sure you can make a noun into an adjective, but I think with -a- you can.

I'm not sure that a noun can be made into an adjective either but if it can then the le- prefix must be used. The attributive -a- is only for use on adjectives.

-Txonä Rolyu

Indeed, that said, you could replace leYuESey with ämerican (IIRC aä is an unstable cluster and collapses) and be justified.

[Muzer]

well, leNa'vi exists so I don't ese why leYu.E.Sey wouldn't...

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

well, leNa'vi exists so I don't ese why leYu.E.Sey wouldn't...

Lol I was just going to say that! Also, wouldn't "ämerican" need to be "ämerikan" because "c" is an illegal character?

-Txonä Rolyu

[Tirea Aean]

I'm stumbling through translating Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States, and this is what I've got so far, at least as far as the title goes:

"Aysawtuteyä 'Okvur leYu.E.Sey."

My question was regarding "People's" specifically: is how I wrote it correct or is there a different way to write plural forms of possessive pronouns that wasn't covered in NiaN?

I think you are correct on Aysawtuteyä. However, the Ay+ is optional in this case, and you may drop it if you wish (You will notice I have retained in my 'name' as well, but it is more normal to drop it). That would give you Sawtuteyä

le- is not 'productive'. I.e., it is reserved for words created by Paul Frommer, and is not for general use. Instead, you use -a- tacked on to the word you need as an adjective, on the side facing the noun. You could write  'Okvur aYu.E.Sey or perhaps Yu.E.Sey a'okvur (which  I like). The only reservation I have here, is I am not 100 percent sure you can make a noun into an adjective, but I think with -a- you can.

I'm not sure that a noun can be made into an adjective either but if it can then the le- prefix must be used. The attributive -a- is only for use on adjectives.

-Txonä Rolyu

Attributive -a- is attributive. if you wanna attribute something to something else, use a free-floating a. I do it all the time.

well, leNa'vi exists so I don't ese why leYu.E.Sey wouldn't...

Lol I was just going to say that! Also, wouldn't "ämerican" need to be "ämerikan" because "c" is an illegal character?

-Txonä Rolyu

c means ts. and even so, in this case, either way amerikan should have a k.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

well, leNa'vi exists so I don't ese why leYu.E.Sey wouldn't...

Lol I was just going to say that! Also, wouldn't "ämerican" need to be "ämerikan" because "c" is an illegal character?

-Txonä Rolyu

c means ts. and even so, in this case, either way amerikan should have a k.

*keystyokx* indeed it should be.

well, leNa'vi exists so I don't ese why leYu.E.Sey wouldn't...

Because le- is not productive.

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

Attributive -a- is attributive. if you wanna attribute something to something else, use a free-floating a. I do it all the time.

I didn't even think of that 0_o

Question though, what do we mean by "productive?" this may have been explained to me once but I have CRS pretty bad

-Txonä Rolyu

[Carborundum]

Question though, what do we mean by "productive?" this may have been explained to me once but I have CRS pretty bad

-Txonä Rolyu

The long and the short of it is this:
Productive affix: You can use it to create new words.
Non-productive affix: Only Frommer can use it to create new words.

[Tirea Aean]

Attributive -a- is attributive. if you wanna attribute something to something else, use a free-floating a. I do it all the time.

I didn't even think of that 0_o

Question though, what do we mean by "productive?" this may have been explained to me once but I have CRS pretty bad

-Txonä Rolyu

meaning tì-le-sä-nì-lì'u is not a word. you cant go throwin those(tì, le, sä, nì) onto words to change the part of speech to your will to fill vocab gaps. the deriving prefixes are not productive because the meaning is not predictable to everyone.

a famous Paul Frommer quote on this issue:

With the limited lexicon we currently have, it's natural for people to try to use the derivational affixes freely to fill gaps. But in fact they aren't freely productive, which is why forms with tì-, sä-, le-, and nì- need to be listed in the lexicon. It's not a given that any particular root can take these affixes, and even when the form exists, the meaning won't necessarily be predictable. (E.g. tìrol means 'song' rather than 'singing.' And in English, "ordinarily" does not mean "in an ordinary manner.")

its like tryin to make an noun from courageous and making it "courageousicity" it turns out the noun form is courage.

or tryin to invent the adv form of the adj 'fast' and making it "fastly" when the adv 'quickly' exists... see what im sayin? its not predictable.

or better yet:

[...]strategery[...]

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

Attributive -a- is attributive. if you wanna attribute something to something else, use a free-floating a. I do it all the time.

I didn't even think of that 0_o

Question though, what do we mean by "productive?" this may have been explained to me once but I have CRS pretty bad

-Txonä Rolyu

meaning tì-le-sä-nì-lì'u is not a word. you cant go throwin those(tì, le, sä, nì) onto words to change the part of speech to your will to fill vocab gaps. the deriving prefixes are not productive because the meaning is not predictable to everyone.

a famous Paul Frommer quote on this issue:

With the limited lexicon we currently have, it's natural for people to try to use the derivational affixes freely to fill gaps. But in fact they aren't freely productive, which is why forms with tì-, sä-, le-, and nì- need to be listed in the lexicon. It's not a given that any particular root can take these affixes, and even when the form exists, the meaning won't necessarily be predictable. (E.g. tìrol means 'song' rather than 'singing.' And in English, "ordinarily" does not mean "in an ordinary manner.")

its like tryin to make an noun from courageous and making it "courageousicity" it turns out the noun form is courage.

or tryin to invent the adv form of the adj 'fast' and making it "fastly" when the adv 'quickly' exists... see what im sayin? its not predictable.

or better yet:

[...]strategery[...]

[light bulb moment] Ohhhhhh!!! Tsun tsliveiam set. Irayo seiyi [\light bulb moment]

-Txonä Rolyu

[Ftiafpi]

Attributive -a- is attributive. if you wanna attribute something to something else, use a free-floating a. I do it all the time.

I didn't even think of that 0_o

Question though, what do we mean by "productive?" this may have been explained to me once but I have CRS pretty bad

-Txonä Rolyu

meaning tì-le-sä-nì-lì'u is not a word. you cant go throwin those(tì, le, sä, nì) onto words to change the part of speech to your will to fill vocab gaps. the deriving prefixes are not productive because the meaning is not predictable to everyone.

a famous Paul Frommer quote on this issue:

With the limited lexicon we currently have, it's natural for people to try to use the derivational affixes freely to fill gaps. But in fact they aren't freely productive, which is why forms with tì-, sä-, le-, and nì- need to be listed in the lexicon. It's not a given that any particular root can take these affixes, and even when the form exists, the meaning won't necessarily be predictable. (E.g. tìrol means 'song' rather than 'singing.' And in English, "ordinarily" does not mean "in an ordinary manner.")

its like tryin to make an noun from courageous and making it "courageousicity" it turns out the noun form is courage.

or tryin to invent the adv form of the adj 'fast' and making it "fastly" when the adv 'quickly' exists... see what im sayin? its not predictable.

or better yet:

[...]strategery[...]

This is the best explanation of productive vs. non-productive I've ever seen. Totally going to have to remember that one. </hijack>

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

Attributive -a- is attributive. if you wanna attribute something to something else, use a free-floating a. I do it all the time.

I didn't even think of that 0_o

Question though, what do we mean by "productive?" this may have been explained to me once but I have CRS pretty bad

-Txonä Rolyu

meaning tì-le-sä-nì-lì'u is not a word. you cant go throwin those(tì, le, sä, nì) onto words to change the part of speech to your will to fill vocab gaps. the deriving prefixes are not productive because the meaning is not predictable to everyone.

a famous Paul Frommer quote on this issue:

With the limited lexicon we currently have, it's natural for people to try to use the derivational affixes freely to fill gaps. But in fact they aren't freely productive, which is why forms with tì-, sä-, le-, and nì- need to be listed in the lexicon. It's not a given that any particular root can take these affixes, and even when the form exists, the meaning won't necessarily be predictable. (E.g. tìrol means 'song' rather than 'singing.' And in English, "ordinarily" does not mean "in an ordinary manner.")

its like tryin to make an noun from courageous and making it "courageousicity" it turns out the noun form is courage.

or tryin to invent the adv form of the adj 'fast' and making it "fastly" when the adv 'quickly' exists... see what im sayin? its not predictable.

or better yet:

[...]strategery[...]

This is the best explanation of productive vs. non-productive I've ever seen. Totally going to have to remember that one. </hijack>

Me too!

-Txonä Rolyu

[Tsamsiyu92]

I see no need to say awssuteyä, I don't think you need to specify that it's about humans...

[Tirea Aean]

I see no need to say awssuteyä, I don't think you need to specify that it's about humans...

yeah. in that case.(from post 1)

and to clarify if it hasnt been clarified yet:

plurals for possessive pronouns are NO different from making plurals of ANY other noun. since all a possessive pronoun is, is just a noun with the genitive case ending, ä or yä.

(tawtuteyä is just a possessive noun, not a pronoun, right? but that isnt really the point.)

[Fmawntu]

In any case, it's nice to know. Looking at it again I could probably just use tute instead of tawtute srak?

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

In any case, it's nice to know. Looking at it again I could probably just use tute instead of tawtute srak?

I would say yes you could.

-Txonä Rolyu