Question about Patientive vs. Dative

Started by Kì’onga Vul, December 13, 2010, 12:06:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tirea Aean

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 15, 2010, 03:57:14 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on December 15, 2010, 02:09:02 AM

*Pol oeru poleng fya'ot a tsaw lolen.
*Po oeru poleng teri fya'o a tsaw lolen.

My feeling is that the second would be the correct way, but I'm not sure on that.

Why would you say the second one is more correct? At least to me, the first example is more direct and clear.

Als, why isn't the second example case marked, seeing that peng is transitive?

well i agree with omängum.

and to answer that second one, its because of teri. remember that the second you have a prepositional phrase, case endings pretty much go out the window...

EDIT: More accurately, What Carborundum said.

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 15, 2010, 03:57:14 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on December 15, 2010, 02:09:02 AM

*Pol oeru poleng fya'ot a tsaw lolen.
*Po oeru poleng teri fya'o a tsaw lolen.

My feeling is that the second would be the correct way, but I'm not sure on that.

Why would you say the second one is more correct? At least to me, the first example is more direct and clear.

Als, why isn't the second example case marked, seeing that peng is transitive?
The first may be "More direct" but it feel to me like it is subtly leaning on English grammar to attain that directness.  When you think about it literally, a way is not something that can be directly told.  A story can be told, but a way can not.  Rather, you tell someone about the way something happened.

As a disclaimer I could very well be wrong on this one...  Or it's possible neither would be correct.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Kemaweyan

Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 15, 2010, 05:16:55 PM
Maybe we need to ask Pawl :)

second to fourty-two, this is the answer to everything HRH

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Tirea Aean on December 15, 2010, 04:25:00 PM

well i agree with omängum.

and to answer that second one, its because of teri. remember that the second you have a prepositional phrase, case endings pretty much go out the window...

EDIT: More accurately, What Carborundum said.

So can I safely conclude:

1. Case endings are not used with prepositions, with prepositions taking precedence over case endings.

2. If a preposition, for instance, removes case markings on the patient, it also causes case markings on the agent to disappear? Or is this one of these odd cases where the agent would have a case marking, but not the patient? (or vice versa?)

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

wm.annis

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 16, 2010, 09:23:27 PMSo can I safely conclude:

1. Case endings are not used with prepositions, with prepositions taking precedence over case endings.

Yes.

Quote2. If a preposition, for instance, removes case markings on the patient, it also causes case markings on the agent to disappear? Or is this one of these odd cases where the agent would have a case marking, but not the patient? (or vice versa?)

If a word has an adposition, it cannot, by definition, be a patient.  We just had an update (well, a very delayed piece of old news) about verbs of speaking: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'ring °12, which seems relevant here.

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 16, 2010, 09:23:27 PM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on December 15, 2010, 04:25:00 PM

well i agree with omängum.

and to answer that second one, its because of teri. remember that the second you have a prepositional phrase, case endings pretty much go out the window...

EDIT: More accurately, What Carborundum said.

So can I safely conclude:

1. Case endings are not used with prepositions, with prepositions taking precedence over case endings.

2. If a preposition, for instance, removes case markings on the patient, it also causes case markings on the agent to disappear? Or is this one of these odd cases where the agent would have a case marking, but not the patient? (or vice versa?)
That's probably not the clearest way to think of it.  It is correct that you don't use a case ending and adposition on the same word, but it's not a case of one replacing the other.  They do different things.  The patientive case indicates something which is somehow part of the verbs action, while the adposition clarifies more about how the action is being performed.

Oel tsatskxeti tse'a
I see that rock

Here that rock is directly what is being seen.

Oe io tsatskxe tse'a
I see above that rock

The adposition io didn't replace the patientive case...  I am no longer saying I am seeing something specific, rather I can see above that rock now.  It's a different meaning.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on December 16, 2010, 09:35:06 PM

Oe io tsatskxe tse'a
I see above that rock

The adposition io didn't replace the patientive case...  I am no longer saying I am seeing something specific, rather I can see above that rock now.  It's a different meaning.

Ok, I see what you mean here.
But since you no longer have a patient, the agent does not need to be case-marked, even though tse`a is transitive?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

'Oma Tirea

[img]http://swokaikran.skxawng.lu/sigbar/nwotd.php?p=2b[/img]

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

Srake serar le'Ìnglìsìa lì'fyayä aylì'ut?  Nari si älofoniru rutxe!!