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.

Kì’onga Vul

I was going through the information on cases and found that I was sometimes confused as to whether the patientive or dative should be used.

For example, I've seen some people post

Oel irayo si ngaru.
and
Oel tse'a ngaru.
but
Pol yìm ngati.

Is there something in about the actions of seeing and thanking which requires the dative rather than patientive on nga?

Also, I came across these two examples in Na'vi in a Nutshell:

Oel pamrel s<eyk>i nga-ti puk-ur.
and
Pol t<eyk>aron nga-ru yerik-it.

These two sentences seem similar to me, but I'm not sure why nga is in a different case, as are puk/yerik.
學而時習之!
Did I make an error you just can't stand to let survive?  Please, correct me!  I'll give you candy or something.

Kemaweyan

#1
We should use patientive for direct object, but intransitive verbs can't have that, therefore we should use dative... For example:

  Oe irayo si ngaru. - I thank you. (note oe, not oel)

All the verbs with si are intransitive and we should use dative for receiver (indirect object) of the action. "I make you thank" - i.e. "You get my thank". So "you" is receiver of action "make thank" (literally).

But if the verb is transitive, there is possible direct object. For example:

  Oel tse'a ngati. - I see you. (physically)
  Pol yìm ngati. - He bind you.

ngati is just an object, so use patientive. Also please note what with transitive verbs, if there is direct object, we should use agentive case for subject: oel.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tirea Aean

#2
Quote from: Kì'onga Vul on December 13, 2010, 12:06:18 PM
I was going through the information on cases and found that I was sometimes confused as to whether the patientive or dative should be used.

For example, I've seen some people post

Oel irayo si ngaru.
and
Oel tse'a ngaru.
but
Pol yìm ngati.

Is there something in about the actions of seeing and thanking which requires the dative rather than patientive on nga?

Also, I came across these two examples in Na'vi in a Nutshell:

Oel pamrel s<eyk>i nga-ti puk-ur.
and
Pol t<eyk>aron nga-ru yerik-it.

These two sentences seem similar to me, but I'm not sure why nga is in a different case, as are puk/yerik.

YESSS!!!! someone is actually keeping up with terminology and consistency!!

oel irayo si ngaru is wrong. should be no l. -l and -t are never used in si verbs
oel tse'a ngaru is wrong. it should be oel tse'a ngat.
pol yìm ngat is correct.

ok well... the <eyk> things may seem a tad crazy with konwing when to use -l -t or just -ru...
well the deciding factor in that is if the verb is transitive

the two templates for eyk:

[Noun A] [intransitive verb]. --> [Noun B]-l [Noun A]-t [intransitive verb with <eyk> infix].

this makes intransitive verbs into transitive ones. latem is a good example:

Tsa'u latem. Oel tsa'ut leykatem.

That changes. I change that. (I cause that to change)

new situation:
[noun A]-l [noun B]-t [transitive verb]. --> [Noun C]-l [Noun A]-ru [Noun B]-t [transitive verb with <eyk>]

for example

Oel Yerikit taron. --> Neytiril oeru yerikit teykaron.
I hunt yerik. Neytiri makes me hunt yerik. (neytiri causes me to hunt yerik)

Carborundum

It's also possible to use the dative case with regular transitive verbs. Like Kemaweyan said, the dative is used to mark indirect objects, which is what we have in sentences like I give you this, which in Na'vi would be oel ngaru tìng fì'ut.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Tirea Aean

#4
Quote from: Carborundum on December 13, 2010, 12:37:06 PM
It's also possible to use the dative case with regular transitive verbs. Like Kemaweyan said, the dative is used to mark indirect objects, which is what we have in sentences like I give you this, which in Na'vi would be oel ngaru tìng fì'ut.

true. i was just covering <eyk> contstructions. however on these lines, I would like to report common MISTAKES:

"ngal srung si oeti" -- wrong because si verbs are not transitive. -l -t are for transitive verb subjects/objects
"oel poleng ngati.." -- nga is not the direct object it is the indirect object.

the correct construction for peng is:
[person telling] peng [person being told]-ru san [thing that is being said.] (sìk)

the thing being said has to have san and sìk around it because ONLY direct speech quotation is allowed, no indirect speech. so for example, correctly:

Eytukan told me that he will come. (Eytukan told me, "I will come.")
Eytukan oeru poleng san oe zaya'u sìk.

and NOT

Eytukanìl oeru poleng futa po zaya'u. (Eytukan told me he will come.) no indirect speech like this in Na'vi

the only example i can possibly think of that would correctly play out transitivity of peng is somethinng along the lines of oel peng ngaru 'uot. and im not sure if that is borderline for the DirectSpeech thing.

"oel pawm ngati"same thing as peng. this should be oe pawm ngaru.

tho the only time i can see this having its transitivity played out is if:

I ask you a question.
Oel pawm ngaru tìpawmit

other than that I believe it would be

[person asking] [person being asked]-ru pawm san [question?] (sìk)

Kì’onga Vul

I get it now!  I understood that verbs could be transitive or intransitive, but I didn't know that it had such a direct influence on case.

I'm writing down all these examples in my Na'vi notebook.  Thanks again.
學而時習之!
Did I make an error you just can't stand to let survive?  Please, correct me!  I'll give you candy or something.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Tirea Aean on December 13, 2010, 02:34:06 PM

the only example i can possibly think of that would correctly play out transitivity of peng is somethinng along the lines of oel peng ngaru 'uot.

.......

tho the only time i can see this having its transitivity played out is if:

I ask you a question.
Oel pawm ngaru tìpawmit


If peng and pawm are intransitive verbs, why is noun case marked in these two examples?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Kemaweyan

I guess the verb pawm is intransitive and we should use it thus:

  Fìtxeleri oe ngaru pawm.
  I ask you about this topic.

But peng actually is transitive ;)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 14, 2010, 04:10:44 PM
I guess the verb pawm is intransitive and we should use it thus:

  Fìtxeleri oe ngaru pawm.
  I ask you about this topic.

But peng actually is transitive ;)

I'd probably use -teri on txele instead of the topical.

And peng is ditransitive (not that that matters much). ;)
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

Kemaweyan

Ok, I can translate this sentence in other way:

  Fìtxeleri oe ngaru pawm.
  I ask you as for this topic.

Quote from: kewnya txamew'itan on December 14, 2010, 04:33:28 PM
And peng is ditransitive (not that that matters much). ;)

Mllte nìwotx ;)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

So the if Peng is indeed transitive, then maybe this is correct (I should have looked it up instead of taking others' word here that it was intransitive):

Eytukanìl oeru poleng futa san po zaya'u sik

If Peng is ditransitive, is something like oel payeng awngat Legal? Something like this might come up in discourse, such as

oel tse`a zera`u sawtutet
oel payeng awngat

It is hard enough to tell if a verb is transitive or intransitive (if not marked so). How does one tell if a verb is ditransitive?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Kemaweyan

#11
As Pawl said, it's better to use direct speech in Na'vi:

  Eytukan oeru poleng san po zaya'u sik
  Eytukan told "he will come".

The sentence Eytukanìl oeru poleng futa po zaya'u - "Eytukan told me what he will come" also is possible, but it's preferable to say this with direct speech :)

However you can use this verb as transitive:

  Eytukanìl poleng oer vurit
  Eytukan told me a story.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Eyawng te Klltepayu

VERY useful thread. This is something I should have got to grips with right from the start.
Please tell me if you see mistakes in a Na'vi post of mine. It's the only way I'll learn. :P

Kan oe trro fnivan lì'fyat leNa'vi frapoto a foru ke sunängu rel arusikx alu Uniltìrantokx.

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 14, 2010, 09:45:34 PM
As Pawl said, it's better to use direct speech in Na'vi:

  Eytukan oeru poleng san po zaya'u sik
  Eytukan told "he will come".

The sentence Eytukanìl oeru poleng futa po zaya'u - "Eytukan told me what he will come" also is possible, but it's preferable to say this with direct speech :)

However you can use this verb as transitive:

  Eytukanìl poleng oer vurit
  Eytukan told me a story.

and by preferrable, you mean VEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYY MUCH preferrable and not really a choice. ;)

'Oma Tirea

Quote from: Tirea Aean on December 14, 2010, 10:49:57 PM
Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 14, 2010, 09:45:34 PM
As Pawl said, it's better to use direct speech in Na'vi:

  Eytukan oeru poleng san po zaya'u sik
  Eytukan told "he will come".

The sentence Eytukanìl oeru poleng futa po zaya'u - "Eytukan told me what he will come" also is possible, but it's preferable to say this with direct speech :)

However you can use this verb as transitive:

  Eytukanìl poleng oer vurit
  Eytukan told me a story.

and by preferrable, you mean VEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYY MUCH preferrable and not really a choice. ;)

But what if the speaker wanted to represent just the concept and not the actual phrase?

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

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

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

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Sxkxawng alu 'Oma Tirea on December 14, 2010, 11:28:38 PM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on December 14, 2010, 10:49:57 PM
Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 14, 2010, 09:45:34 PM
As Pawl said, it's better to use direct speech in Na'vi:

  Eytukan oeru poleng san po zaya'u sik
  Eytukan told "he will come".

The sentence Eytukanìl oeru poleng futa po zaya'u - "Eytukan told me what he will come" also is possible, but it's preferable to say this with direct speech :)

However you can use this verb as transitive:

  Eytukanìl poleng oer vurit
  Eytukan told me a story.

and by preferrable, you mean VEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYY MUCH preferrable and not really a choice. ;)

But what if the speaker wanted to represent just the concept and not the actual phrase?



what? can i have an example? hrh im confused

im just sayin when you report a person's or your own speech even if you are paraphrasing, you still have to use direct speech construction.

as for "tell me a story", that is different.

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: Kemaweyan on December 14, 2010, 04:36:08 PM
Ok, I can translate this sentence in other way:

  Fìtxeleri oe ngaru pawm.
  I ask you as for this topic.

I still think -teri is better. It's important to remember that the topical is very rare, if it showed up in every situation like there is where it might work, it would be a lot more common than it is.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

omängum fra'uti

In case others haven't made it clear enough, it is grammatically incorrect to do indirect speech.

For concepts, I'm not sure we have a concrete answer.  For example......

He told me how it happened.

I can think of two possibilities off the top of my head....

*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.
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 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?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Carborundum

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on December 15, 2010, 03:57:14 PM
Als, why isn't the second example case marked, seeing that peng is transitive?
Nouns cannot have both adposition and case.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.