Present Progressive

[Tsuksìm atsawl (KaPTan)]

I know that I probably just havn't been looking hard enough for the answer to this, but what infix would you use to put a word into the present progressive (ing). 

The other question I have (I don't know what the tense/form its called) is that I'm wondering how would turn a word like touch into touches, or push into pushes.  again, I don't know what this transformation is called but I would like to know how to do it.

[Seze]

I would highly recommend you get yourself a copy of Na'vi in a Nutshell, its free btw.  Chapter 5 section 1 has all the infixes in it.  The infix you are looking for is the <er> infix, which I believe is the present tense infix (the book does not go into the linguistic terminology).  As for the second part, in English that is the third person singular form.  As far as I know, Na'vi doesn't have this in it.  For instance lets look at the following...

He hunts banshees.

In Na'vi, this would be written as...

Poan-ìl taron ay-ikran-it.

We used the ergative case to mark the subject and the accusative case to mark the direct object.

Hope this makes sense for you.

[Kayrìlien]

I know that I probably just havn't been looking hard enough for the answer to this, but what infix would you use to put a word into the present progressive (ing). 

The other question I have (I don't know what the tense/form its called) is that I'm wondering how would turn a word like touch into touches, or push into pushes.  again, I don't know what this transformation is called but I would like to know how to do it.

English has two completely different grammatical instances that both use -ing at the end of the verb in question. Here's a short explanation of both of them:

The "present progressive" you've mentioned sounds like the Imperfective Aspect in Na'vi. (I'm not a linguist by any stretch of the imagination, so excuse me if my terminology is wrong.) As Seze mentioned, the infix used for the Imperfective is <er>, in infix position 1. Therefore, to say "I am walking", you would say "Oe t<er>ìran.". Note that you can combine the Imperfective Aspect with the Past and/or Recent Past Tense infixes to say things such as "I was walking" or "I was just walking", which would be "Oe t<arm>ìran." and "Oe t<ìrm>ìran." respectively.

Another instance of -ing attached to verbs in English is when a verb is used as an adjective, such as "sleeping Viperwolves". In this case, the infix <us> is used, in infix position Pre-1. "Sleeping viperwolves" would therefore be "Ay-nantang h<us>ahaw".

Regarding your second question, there is no reason why you would ever need to differentiate between "touch" and "touches", because Na'vi verbs do NOT conjugate for person. Basically, although you're probably used to seeing "I touch", "you touch", "he touches", etc. (this is even more noticable in languages such as Spanish where each "person" has it's own suffix), this doesn't occur in Na'vi, and verbs are only conjugated for tense, aspect, and affect.

Hope that helps you without being too terminology-laden,

Kayrìlien

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Just to make it even more confusing, English also uses -ing to mark abstract nouns derived from verbs in some cases as in:

hunting is dangerous.

In this context tì- is used:

tìtaron lehrrap lu.


So the list is:

If someone is [verb]ing then you use <er> and no auxiliary verb

If you have a [verb]ing person/thing (using it as an attributive adjective) then you use <us> and an attributive -a-

Lastly, if you're using it as a noun [verb]ing is something then you use tì- [possibly with <us> as well] and apply appropriate cases.

[omängum fra'uti]

I would highly recommend you get yourself a copy of Na'vi in a Nutshell, its free btw.  Chapter 5 section 1 has all the infixes in it.  The infix you are looking for is the <er> infix, which I believe is the present tense infix (the book does not go into the linguistic terminology).

Technically Na'vi doesn't have a "present tense" infix.  The lack of tense can be taken as present tense (Unless contextually it should be taken otherwise) so tolaron, teraron and taron can all be seen as present tense (Though tolaron without tense is typically going to be taken as talking about something that has happened already).

Just to make it even more confusing, English also uses -ing to mark abstract nouns derived from verbs in some cases as in:

hunting is dangerous.

In this context tì- is used:

tìtaron lehrrap lu.

I'd actually say that as tìtusaron lehrrap lu (Though to be fair, tìtawnaron lehrrap lu nìhawng).  What you are referring to is a gerund, though it's unclear how Paul Frommer considers those to be formed as I've seen two different forms from him - one without the <us> and one with.  I tend to think the form with <us> is more "correct".

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I actually saw that when I was looking through the updates, thanks for reminding me.

Pesengit ayoel tivok txo ke lu nga ayoer? 

[Tsuksìm atsawl (KaPTan)]

Regarding your second question, there is no reason why you would ever need to differentiate between "touch" and "touches", because Na'vi verbs do NOT conjugate for person. Basically, although you're probably used to seeing "I touch", "you touch", "he touches", etc. (this is even more noticable in languages such as Spanish where each "person" has it's own suffix), this doesn't occur in Na'vi, and verbs are only conjugated for tense, aspect, and affect.

rgggg.  You see, I'm trying to translate poems for an english project where we have to study a certain poet.  My teacher loves and encorages teh fact that I'm learning Na'vi, and he's going to give me some xtra credit.  BTW contemporary poetry is a B**** to translate.  Here's the first stanze of the Poem I'm trying to translate and here's what i have so far.  If you have any ideas or commets I would REALLY appreciate, and give reasons for all comments.

You are not beautiful, exactly.
You are beautiful, inexactly.
You let a weed grow by the mulberry
and a mulberry grow by the house.
So close, in the personal quiet
of a windy night, it brushes the wall
and sweeps away the day till we sleep.

Nga lu kaw sevin, nìfya'o
Nga lu sevin, kenìfya'o
Nga tung hì'ia 'ewll akawng tsawl slu ìlä melberi
Ulte melberi tsawl slu ìlä kelku
Fìtxan tstu si, eo nìtute fnu
Nìhufwe txon, po 'ampi(es)

Thanks for your help.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

You are not beautiful, exactly.
You are beautiful, inexactly.
You let a weed grow by the mulberry
and a mulberry grow by the house.
So close, in the personal quiet
of a windy night, it brushes the wall
and sweeps away the day till we sleep.

Nga lu kaw sevin, nìfya'o
Nga lu sevin, kenìfya'o
Nga tung hì'ia 'ewll akawng tsawl slu ìlä melberi
Ulte melberi tsawl slu ìlä kelku
Fìtxan tstu si, eo nìtute fnu
Nìhufwe txon, po 'ampi(es)

Thanks for your help.

You should try shakespeare, he really is a pain to translate.   

In your first line, it should be "ke lu" not "lu kaw", kaw means not one, you just want to negate the sentence.

I'm not too happy with the word you've used for exactly but for want of a better word it'll do.

'ong might be more appropriate than tsawl slu but either is ok.

tstu si is a verb. Possibly for to be close or possibly for to come close or to close something with tstu effectively being shut.

Fnu is an interjection and possibly adjective, you want tìfnu for the noun and letute for personal or possibly tuteyä but definitely not nìtute.

txon lehufwe not nìhufwe.

Also you seem to be missing a last line, here's one for you:

ulte trrti 'ärìp alìm vaykrr a ayoe hahw.

[Tsuksìm atsawl (KaPTan)]

Also you seem to be missing a last line, here's one for you:

ulte trrti 'ärìp alìm vaykrr a ayoe hahw.

Irayo for the corrections, and yes I WAS missing the last line, thats why it wasn't boled in the text .

Again thank you all for shedding the light on my primary question, it was a big help.