short sentence.

[nicktheh]

oel om<im>um tsa ay+'u tsunslu tikangkem.


<im> for past tense
ay+ for plural

should there be past tense in tsunslu as well?

meaning is supposed to be something like:
I know(recently) that thing(s) may work.

[NeotrekkerZ]

I'm assuming you want corrections/input? 

<ìm> for recent past tense

You're tsa should be futa
Infix is in wrong place on omum.
You're using work as a verb, so you need si.

Your "may" there is bothering me.  It sounds more to me like you're trying to say "things might work" in which case I would use ayu kxawm tìkangkem sivi.  Tsunslu is more along the lines of "to be possible."

Putting it all together I would say Oel ìmomum futa ayu kxawm tìkangkem sivi.

[nicktheh]

Oel ìmomum futa ayu kxawm tìkangkem sivi

Can you explain the various things you added?

What exactly are Futa, kxawm and sivi?
I understand you turned work into a verb, what does the -vi ending do?
also, what does the full thing translate to now ?

I was going for something like "i know that things might work out" but know is recently past, and might is in the future

[Eana Taw atsawl]

True, it is future (it might work out later) but the might actually adds a "I don't know" aspect in as well

Ie (It might work out or it may not) which is why NeotrekkerZ changed the Tsunslu to kxawm, and thus, because Kxawm is an adverb, he made the tìkangkem a verb with the Si ending (tìkangkem si) and inflected it with the <iv> infix because it is expressing a possibility and so needs the Subjunctive.

Am I right, NeotrekkerZ? (I'm using this as a chance to test my own understanding, so I might be wrong  ) 

[NeotrekkerZ]

Essentially correct.  Kxawm is for "perhaps/maybe" and modifies the verb form of "work."  We've been discussing this in another post and essentially the consensus is that until we know more, the "might/may verb" when describing a possibility is created with kxawm verb(with <iv> infix to reinforce the possibility aspect of the phrase).

EDIT:  A few more things...

Regarding futa, when you say you know "something" and that something is a phrase then you use futa to indicate that what follows is the thing you know.  This works in every case when the direct object is more than just a simple word:

Ngal fpìl säfpìl is You think thoughts
Ngal fpìl futa oe skxawng lu is You think [that] I'm a moron

In English, we can and oftentimes do omit the "that," but in Na'vi we must say it.  This also occurs when a phrase is used to describe a noun:

Utral a oe ts<am>e'a trram...       The tree [that/which] I saw yesterday...

Note that I only use "a" here as utral in the sentence is not a direct object, it's the subject of the sentence and everything else is used like an adjective to describe it (similar to utral a-tsawl the tall tree)

There's much more about these types of constructions in Na'vi in a Nutshell in the chapter on sentences.  I encourage you to take a look at them for further examples.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Ngal fpìl säfpìl is You think thoughts

nga fpìl säfpìlfa. A construction such as you described may well not be possible in na'vi, there was a discussion a while ago about using objects derived from the verb, dream dreams, think thoughts and various other examples and I believe the conclusion was that we don't know.

Also, with säfpìl being an instrument derived with sä-, it would fit back into the verb phrase of the verb it is derived from with -fa- not as an object. In this sense, thoughts is an inaccurate translation and it isn't easy to come up with a better one in English although the current one in the dictionary, idea is a bit closer.

[NeotrekkerZ]

Ok, then, Here is something a bit more normal.  I was just trying to demonstrate the difference in a direct object that is a thing vs. a DO which is a phrase.

Oel yom syuvet.    I eat food.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I know. It's a shame that examples like that are difficult to find because most of the verbs that use futa are normally intransitive. I guess one of the best examples would be new.

oel new syuvet
oel new futa livu oeru syuve