Author Topic: Bible in Na'vi  (Read 75061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tìmuiäyä'itan

  • 'Eveng
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Karma: 6
  • fìtseng kllkxem oe ke tsun 'u alahe sivi
    • Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #80 on: March 18, 2010, 03:20:19 pm »
Ma xellos,
the bible has been translated from ancient Hebrew and Hellenistic culture to many other cultures worldwide in the last two Millennia, even into Klingon ;D
So I see no reason, why it wouldn't be passible with Na'vi...

Ma Eywayä_tawtute:
Quote
1 Ulte nìwotx tawtute-a atxkxe
Okay, so you want to say skypeople land instead of kifkey. No prob with that. But what you say here is rather skypeopleish land. And you put that adjectival attributive marker "a" with a noun, which is not possible if I'm right.

You have two nouns, tawtute and atxkxe, and you want one to be describing the other (tawtute describe atxkxe), so tawtute is to be an attributive (Anybody with with deeper language theory knowlegde can confirm my use of terms?)

So firt, you have to make tawtute an adjective that would maybe translate tawtuteish. For that there is the adjective deriving prefix le. Just put le in front of the noun you have, and you make it an adjective:

letawtute

Note the words on our signature: Bible leNa'vi Project. Same thing here, Na'vi is usually a noun be it's used to describe the Bible we wanna get, so we put le before it.

Let's go to the "a" thing:
If you have an adjective, and you want to use it as attributive, i.e. to describe a noun, like here atxkxe, you need to mark it as attributive. Thatfor you put an a to it. Like in lora lì'fya - beautiful language. As in Na'vi you are a bit more free about word order than in English, you can not only say beautiful language, but also language beautiful. That would put the "a" to the other end of the word: lì'fya alor. So the "a" always goes with that side of the adjective, that is closest to the noun it describes.

As for adjectives build with "le", there is a special rule. If the noun is after the adjective, you put the "a" as usual-> letawtutea atxkxe. But if you put it the other way round, there is already the "le", marking the word to be an attributive adjective, so you leave the a out -> atxkxe letawtute.

I don't want to offend you in case you did know these things already, but I think it's a good thing to write down the basics, so those who are newer to the language get also learn a bit. If I made any mistakes or you have further questions, I beg you to tell.

That all being said, I'd put it differently. You say tawtuteish land, I'd say tawtute's land: atxkxe sawtuteyä or sawtuteyä atxkxe.
Adding the Genitive to a noun marks it as the "owner" of the other noun. Neytiriyä tskow -> Neytiri's bow. It's not always a proper owner but describes also the bigger thing that the noun belongs to: Omatikayayä tsamsiyu -> Omatikaya's warrior -> warrior of the Omatikaya.
You might wonder about sawtute being a typo. It's not. Because it's not one skyperson's land, but the land of all (Plural) skypeople, you have to put the skypeople in Plural, that goes by adding "ay" in front of it (only if it is more than 3 of them. For a party of 2 and 3 the Na'vi have seperate affixes: me and pxe).
So you add "ay" in front of tawtute: *aytawtute. I put the asterisk in front of it because it is still a false form, as "ay" causes lention. Lention is the changing of sounds (and thus letters) because of other letters being before them. It's for the ease of pronounciation, but it's a rule you have to stick to. I cannot think of any lention in English, but I am sure there are some as well, most languages should have this.

Now, what happens is that the following letter "t" changes to "s": aysawtute. There is not a change with every letter, only some do change. This is usually described in all the grammar and Phonologies I've seen so far around. Here's the same thing again on the Na'vi wikiibook.

Now in the case of "ay" you can leave it out when it causes lention. Because you would know: This word should have a "t " rather than an "s" in the beginning, so you know: Okay, it's plural, without it having "ay".

So sawtute.


Quote
(was) 'aw-a mokri sí ‘aw-a pongu.
was= lamu: lu + infix am for past. You put the infixes for tense before the second last vowel in the word. If there is only one vowel, you have to use that one ;) Here's more on the infixes we have.

I would have used lì'fya (=language) instead of mokri, but this is only personal preference. I think the accent on the must be the other way round though ;)


No mistakes I find in this part, but when you put the two together...

Either you say that: The whole earth was one language's and one people's, then you'd have to put language and people into Genitive (see above, put "yä" after the noun. That is, in these cases you'd need only "ä" as stated here.)

Or you say the whole earth had one language and people. As there is no "to have", you have to use the dative, which would roughly translate: For the world is one language and people.

In this case you change the noun of the first part of the sentence, adding the dative suffix (u/ru) to the term for earth or land. If you use the dative construct, you'd also have to have the verb lu to be the first verb in the sentence, followed by the dative, as pointed out here.

Quote
2 Ulte za<ím>’u hasey
I think you might have to add a po there (=it). And I am not sure if you can say it came done. I am also not sure what King James means with "it came to pass". In the Hebrew text there is (as far as I can tell) only a word that would say: See! Look! followed by saying they wandered eastward...

So I'm not gonna comment on that one further, as I am not sure if I understand the English right.

Quote
ay-fo t<ol>íran ftu alím

alìm is an adverb, accoding to Taronyu's dictionary. That means it's a word that does describe a verb. Like saying he is hunting Palulukans far away: Po t<er>aron alìm Falulukan. I put Palulukan in Plural here, yes, lention!

I have also not found an adjective for "far", so I think you'd have to use lìm which means: "to be far":

ayfo tolìran ftu tseng a po lìm

they walk (perfect-aspect) from place that: it is far.

I am not sure about the relative clauses with a. If anyone could confirm this is the way to do it or correct me, that would be just marvellous. :P

Quote
ay-fo t<ol>aron txan-a atxkxe tsní t<ol>ok atxkxe-a (Shinar)
I have no idea why you use hunt here...? Tsnì goes I think only with a few verbs, can't remember which, but I'm sure taron was none of them. Why not just use ulte to connect the next sentence?
tok is a transitive verb. That means, thee are two nouns to it, one that does a thing and one that is affected. The doer gets the ergative ending(ìl/l), the affected thing gets the accusative ending(ìt/tì/t).
It would translate as "to be" like lu, though lu would mean to actually be something (oe lu skxawng) and tok would mean to be at some place (oel tok kelutralìt). Oh, wait, that works fine, I reread it. You could also use kelku si, to stress on them actually living there and not only staying overnight. But tok is fine as well.
Atxkxe without "a" ;) Had that already. Maybe you can use san...sìk turning it to direct speech, like saying: and they lived in land: Shinar. Or you say they lived in the land that is called Shinar: ayfol tok atxkxe a Shinar sy<awn>aw.

But didn't they first find (run) the land?

Quote
ulte ay-fo k<ol>elku si tsatsing.
Ah, here yo have it. Okay, so I am not sure what you wanted to express with them hunting and occupying... ???

I think you want to say tsa tseng instead of tsatsing, right? Or did I get this one wrong, too?


Quote
Ulte ay-fo s<ol>i mokri aylaru-hu pongu

There is a word for speak in Na'vi (plltxe), why you use a construct of si and mokri? I also think si would have to go after mokri in this case.

aylaruhu and hu seems not to make sense to me. Why not say: aylaru ponguä (=to the others of the people)?

Quote
“Níwin, tung ayoeng si ay-tskxe fpi ay-kelku, ulte si ay-fo a-txur.”
I think there is no ""-marks in Na'vi. At least they do not use them alone. They have words to indicate the beginning (san) and end (sìk) of direct speech.

I have a feeling like stone for the Na'vi is not something you produce, but that is lying around. I guess it would only refer to the mere rock. So maybe it would make no sense to say: Make stone.
Btw, the verb si has to be in post position to the thing done, and I think it is not used in the sense of "to produce". Kelku si is not "build a house", but make what you usually make with a house -> live, dwell. So tskxe si would be like: "do, what you usually do with a stone/rock". So what you usually do with it? Throw it, climb it?... you'd also have to make aytskxe to ayskxe or skxe, due to lention ;)

One possibility I see, is use sleyku (=produce) along with something like txula (=construct) and 'u (=thing). We have to make up words in such cases, so maybe something like:

ayfol slameyku txula'u (or better tula'u -> lention, plural ;))

txula'u would then roughly translate as build-thing, so material to build or construct. We would have to see if this would be comprehensible by others. But we are also free here. We cannot assume there will ever be all words we need for the bible, so we have to make up our own words in a way, it is comprehensible for people. This is what bible translaters have been doing throughout the ages, there's no way around, only a way to avoid doing it too often (and thus becoming incomprehensible). Luther shaped the modern German language by his bible translation, our language would be different now if it wasn't for him bringing the bible to every house.

Quote
Ulte tawtute s<ol>i txur-a ay-tskxe-íl tsní kenong meyp ay-tskxe-ti, ulte 
I already wrote on si being post positional and it not meaning "to produce" above, as well as I wrote about the use of tsnì. I actually just found a forum entry that points out tsnì to go with intransitive verbs, so not with produce ;)

I am not sure what you want to say with strong and weak stones... ???

As for slime and brick, I guess the text just wants to point out that it has been a good and strong way to build houses (helku -> lention  ;D) So, if you say the houses were made with build material of stone, you'd have that meaning in in a way, as the Na'vi do not live in stone houses as far as I know. There is the verb yìm (=bind) which could maybe be used to make up a word that could go for mortar, something like stone-binding mass or something.

But honestly, I wrote about 2 hours on this one and cannot think too much any more, and I am hungry. Will be back later. I hope I didn't scare yo off though, tell me where I'm wrong, I'm just trying to get an understanding of yor translation and tell about the mistakes I think there are. I am always a bit concerned about my long messages decouraging people... please don't be. Let's talk on this.

Yawä ayngahu
srungìri ftära tsyokxìl ngeyä
ke ivomum futa pesuru
lu srung skiena tsyokxta ngeyä
ulte Jesus a nerìn ayfo pamlltxe
san sutehu lu keltsun
slä Yawähu frakem tsunslu sìk.

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4767
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #81 on: March 18, 2010, 03:41:55 pm »
Wow, Timuiäyä`itan! That is one of the best posts I have yet read on this forum! There is too much there to 'digest' at my relatively short lunch, but your description alone of how to use the attributive marker le- properly is extremely enlightening! I am hoping to try a verse or two tonight, if I can find some time. This week has been seriously messed up schedulewise  :(

As far as the validity of this project goes, even though there are no real Na`vi (that we know of), there are people who are getting seriously caught up in the whole Na`vi thing. This project may a real good way to reach these folk. And when you get down to it, Ewya or Gaia is just really a subset of almighty yawä. (Or said another way, stewardship of the earth is required and expected of us by the Lord.)

I am wondering if we shouldn't set up a wiki page or something like that to keep track of all the little notes, proper names and terms, a guide to style, etc. that this project will invariably accumulate. (I pity the person who gets stuck with 1 Chronicles 1-10!)

Question: As far as verse numbering goes, I see some are using arabic numbers (1,2,3, etc.) Should we be using this, or Na`vi number names? If Arabic, base 10 or base 8?

yawä ngahu
« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 03:47:14 pm by `Eylan Ayfalulukanä »

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Offline riftmaster

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 1
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #82 on: March 18, 2010, 05:51:49 pm »
My Internet receiver is broken on my computer so I am on my iPod, can somebody else make a start on the PDF until I get it fixed

Sorry

riftmaster

yawä ngahu

update: should be fixed by Monday
« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 05:54:30 pm by riftmaster »




Offline Col Quaritch

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
  • Karma: 54
  • Navi! The other white meat.
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #83 on: March 18, 2010, 06:08:25 pm »
Wow, Timuiäyä`itan! That is one of the best posts I have yet read on this forum! There is too much there to 'digest' at my relatively short lunch, but your description alone of how to use the attributive marker le- properly is extremely enlightening! I am hoping to try a verse or two tonight, if I can find some time. This week has been seriously messed up schedulewise  :(

As far as the validity of this project goes, even though there are no real Na`vi (that we know of), there are people who are getting seriously caught up in the whole Na`vi thing. This project may a real good way to reach these folk. And when you get down to it, Ewya or Gaia is just really a subset of almighty yawä. (Or said another way, stewardship of the earth is required and expected of us by the Lord.)

I am wondering if we shouldn't set up a wiki page or something like that to keep track of all the little notes, proper names and terms, a guide to style, etc. that this project will invariably accumulate. (I pity the person who gets stuck with 1 Chronicles 1-10!)

Question: As far as verse numbering goes, I see some are using arabic numbers (1,2,3, etc.) Should we be using this, or Na`vi number names? If Arabic, base 10 or base 8?

yawä ngahu

Well I really feel since its the goal of doing this all in Na'vi I say the number system as well. Though I will admit still learning how that all goes together.  The wiki idea I think is rather a cool idea do you know how to set one of those up? Now as to Na'vi language I would just kill for "Na'vi for dummys book" basic words I can understand its this knowing where to put the equivlent of our ing or 's to a word or the er at the end. As to you mention reaching people I agree this could be just that one thing that finaly waters the seed someone else planted so long ago. I know already of someone who said they will read this bible but have yet to read the english one so that there tells me it will have impact.
Biggest thing I think that blows me away is when this first started it was just myself and TesterScott, then Timuiaya'itan jumped in after that was like a flood of people wanting to help in this at this time we have 10 people invovled in this project the up shot of which most are very good at the language makes up great for those of us who are on the level of a na'vi toddler still :P

Riftmaster dont sweat it we'er not in a 'must have it now mind set' get the pdf up when you can. So I think thats about it for now I have appointment to talk to my pastor and see what insight and help he can offer me on this knowing the size of our churches resources I would be very surprised if he couldnt point me to some book or person who couldnt help in some way.

Jesws yawne aynga

(so heres a question on loging out of the message in a letter from Dr Frommer he spelled his name Paul in navi Pawl. So to be correct would Jesus be spelled Jesws? Just a thought something to work out as a group next word I would like us to navi up or find a good = is Lord )


Offline riftmaster

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 1
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #84 on: March 18, 2010, 06:40:49 pm »
(so heres a question on loging out of the message in a letter from Dr Frommer he spelled his name Paul in navi Pawl. So to be correct would Jesus be spelled Jesws? Just a thought something to work out as a group next word I would like us to navi up or find a good = is Lord )

good idea, I never thought of that. I was thinking more along the lines of the meaning of the names

Yawä ngahu




Offline riftmaster

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 1
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #85 on: March 18, 2010, 06:43:51 pm »
Do you think they would give us a wiki page on the learnnavi.org wiki?




Offline Tìmuiäyä'itan

  • 'Eveng
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Karma: 6
  • fìtseng kllkxem oe ke tsun 'u alahe sivi
    • Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #86 on: March 18, 2010, 07:08:47 pm »
Irayo ;) I only hope it's all more or less right. I only started with the language last week, but having studied Latin, Greek, Hebrew in UNi and English, French (which I failed, but was there) and Spanish in school, I guess I have gotten used to see language from a different point of view, like looking at the structure.
So I can get used to the structure without knowing too many words. Actually I have to look up most of the Na'vi words, I have almost no vocabulary in my brains...

As for the wiki, this might be a possibillity, but I tend to get confused with too many wiki pages scattered around everywhere. That's why I proposed to create a pdf that lists all our findings, also translations and the like. Riftmaster said he'll be after that and get the first version of the pdf online tonight. So there we'd have a document that has all our findings at one place, and each of us can get through the forum as well as get through the pdf and seek mistakes or cross-check things, and we discuss it here...

I think this would be a straightforward thing without scattering too much info over too wide places. Once the pdf is online we can start having links to it in our signatures, so we have it all handy and other people can see how far we got and maybe give us feedback as well (this seems to work for Taronyu's dictionary, why not for us?).
And that document-pdf would be one day the bible, i.e. contain the whole text plus info on decisions we made while translating. All will grow step by step.

After a while, when there's maybe too much to hold within one pdf we can as well splitt it off. That's my 2 cents on it, but if there is a majority favouring a wiki, why not?

I'd say being all sawtute, let's stick with the base-10 system. We can later decide whether we want to change this in the final version (printed?  8)), but atm I think it would confuse too many people.

What I wrote about Eywa was just an idea, but I think using Yawä is better at the first place. Maybe when there are once 100 translations into Na'vi, there can also be one that uses the name Eywa, I don't know. I wouldn't personally connect Eywa too much with the Gaia idea, but many people do so this is why I think it's better to use Yawä. I don't think there is something like a subset when it comes to God. Either it is all God (which is true for father, son and holy spirit) or it is part of the creation and has nothing to do with God at all... but still this is my pov based a bit on my church and study background...

@riftmaster:
Just read about your internet connection. As there would not be too much to get into the pdf (what else apart from Yawä as the name of God did we agree on? Suggestions? What should be in the pdf at all? Ideas? Please speak your mind to support riftmasters efforts), I think it will be no problem at all to wait for a few more days. If you need any help getting started later, or you have questions on what goes to the pdf, ask here. You took over the responsibility, that also means you can basically at the beginning decide on what to do and how to do it. Just think of it as supporting us and guess what kind of support with the pdf would be useful, then do it. And if you doubt, ask. We all depend on you here for that part, so we are all very grateful you took over this part.

@Col Quaritch and all the others:
One thing about finding words not might be that you have an outdated version of the dictionary. Taronyu seems to do updates all one or two days. The other possibility is that you cannot figure out which infixes, affixes suffixes and lentions go along with a certain word. You will in most cases only find the basic form in the dictionary. The third and most possible thing is that I made a typo or a plain mistake. So look at my long postings on things I don't understand and than think abot why not throw something like that at me?  ;D Honestly, if you find the time, do so, I'll be glad to explain and even more glad to get rid of mistakes. After all I want to deliver good work. Okay, I'll tell you, it's Psalm 1,1:

sìlronsem lu tute a ke tìran ìlä säfpìl ayska'ayuyä tìsiltsanyä sì a ke kllkxem mì fya'o sìkameyä sì a ke kelku si hu ayhusangham tìmuiäyä.

I'm gonna try explaining it in detail, then I'll have to go to bed, as I have to really get some work for Uni done tomorrow (more Psalms translating, this time to German;)) and I don't know how much time I can spend here over the weekend. (I really want to get the psalm done)

sìlronsem= clever (adjective)
So first part: sìlronsem lu tute = Clever the man.
I know (meanwhile, not when I wrote it) that KJV translates "blessed the man", but if you look into the Hebrew text it uses a word different from "to bless", a word that is rather seldom and hard to translate. It is like "to be pronounced happy" or, if I can trust my dictionary, it is also somehow connected with doing a thing in a good and clever way, so the difference of being clumsy (I cannot think of a word for this in English yet), so I used clever. What do you guys think of it?

a ke tìran ìlä säfpìl ayska'ayuyä tìsiltsanyä
a= Relative particle. I am never sure how to use these, actually those little particles mark a relative clause that it relaive to one noun in the main sentence, like "This is the man, who started translating the bible". Here, "this is the man" would be the main sentence, the main information. The rest "who started translating the bible" would be the relative clause. It describes the man, is relative to him, relates to him one would say I think.
Basically it uses the same function as an attribtive adjective. If the man was not translating the bible, but only intelligent, you could use this adjective (intelligent) instead of the whole describing subclause: This is the intelligent man.
As we use the "a" in Na'vi as attributive marker for adjectives, it seems to me we also use this as marker for whole subclauses like "who started translating the bible". So this is the way I started here: Clever is the man (attributive clauses)

ke tìran= not walk
ìlä säfpìl= following/via/by idea
<ay>ska'a<yu><yä>= Plural marker <ay> + ska'a (=destroy) + nominative agent noun deriving affix <yu> (add this and you get a doer from the verb, like do+<er> in English resulting in doer, same for hunt+<er> etc, here be destroy+<er>) + Genitive marker <yä>
-> destroyers's (is this the correct English spelling for several destroyers put to Genitive, or would it be destroyers'?)
<tì>siltsan<yä>= noun deriving prefix <tì> + sìltsan (=good) + Genitive marker <yä>
-> Goodness' (or good's if you could say this, I mean the goodness as a concept)

so this subclause translate back to English like:
not walk following the idea of the destroyers of Goodness.

That would be my approximation to the term "the ungodly", I know it is very free and very interpreting, thogh I can back up with Hebrew again, hehe, which has a word that can mean godless as well as doing bad deeds, maybe they didn't make a difference between the two back then.
If you come up with better words I'd gladly be corrected.

sì a ke kllkxem mì fya'o sìkameyä
I am not sure with this one (another one of these later). Sì means "and", but only between words, while ulte also means "and", but only between sentences. As we have subsentences here, that serve the function of words, I am not sure whether to use or ulte. If anybody can find evidence what to do in these cases around this whole community I'd be very glad to learn how to actually do this.

ke kllkxem= not stand
mì fya'o= on/in path
sìkameyä OMG plain wrong! sìkameyä=<tì> + kame (=see in the spiritual sense) + <yä>. I missed a ke here, at the moment these are those who see in a spiritual sense, but I wanted to have said those, who do not see in a spiritual sense. ke before a noun is a prefix and no word on its own, according to the dictionary, so I should have written: kesìkameyä. The "s" instead of a "t" shows us that we deal with plural here.

So those who do not see in a spiritual sense is my approximation to the term "sinners", because when you stand in sins, you have not yet actually seen the Lord and His grace in a spiritual way. I wonder what you say to that and if this is something we can agree on, I know it is well arguable.

sì a ke kelku si hu ayhusangham tìmuiäyä
For applies what I've written further above. Same goes for a.
ke kelku si= not live/dwell
hu <ay>h<us>angham= with + Plural marker <ay> + hangham (=laugh) + active participle infix <us>
-> with the laughing (meaning the laughing as a group of people as opposed to laughter, which would be hangsam + prefix <tì>)
<tì>muiä<yä> noun deriving <tì> + fair, proper, right, justified + Genitive <yä>
I am not sure about this construction anymore, as I think now laughers of Fairness/Properness/Justifiedness is incomprehensible. The adposition teri means "about/concerning", so maybe this would be a better way of expressing it:
teri tìmuiä

So this is what I tried to translate the scornful with. What is your thought on it? Any critizism welcome as above mentioned.

So finally I gotta correct the sentence to the following:

sìlronsem lu tute a ke tìran ìlä säfpìl ayska'ayuyä tìsiltsanyä sì a ke kllkxem mì fya'o kesìkameyä sì a ke kelku si hu ayhusangham teri tìmuiä.

Hope I explained all so it is well understandable.


@Col Qaritch:
Quote
so heres a question on loging out of the message in a letter from Dr Frommer he spelled his name Paul in navi Pawl. So to be correct would Jesus be spelled Jesws? Just a thought something to work out as a group next word I would like us to navi up or find a good = is Lord
He spelled his name Pawl because there is the a before the a, so this way it is possible. But as far as I think w cannot stand as a vowel on its own, so Jesus ist just nice I think.

Good is the Lord = sìltsan lu Yawä. Or was this not what you were asking ??? Okay, it's already late here,

Tìmuiäyä'itan out...  ;)
srungìri ftära tsyokxìl ngeyä
ke ivomum futa pesuru
lu srung skiena tsyokxta ngeyä
ulte Jesus a nerìn ayfo pamlltxe
san sutehu lu keltsun
slä Yawähu frakem tsunslu sìk.

Offline riftmaster

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 1
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #87 on: March 18, 2010, 07:31:24 pm »
 As Tìmuiäyä'itan said all PDF suggestions would be helpful,
my goal is to have an FTP server for the project so all finished work can be uploaded in a streamlined way
( any ideas on how to do that? )




Offline riftmaster

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 1
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #88 on: March 18, 2010, 08:16:21 pm »
Just made an FTP server more details later




Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4767
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #89 on: March 18, 2010, 08:54:26 pm »
Some more thoughts: Although PDF's are fine as a place for a final product, they are terrible for collobative use, because they are impractical to edit. It is also hard to concatenate PDF's. For that reason, we need to think this through a little more. This is a huge project, and trying to do this only with PDF's will quickly get out of control.

Additionally, a style needs to be agreed on for how finished text should appear. How are verses arranged? Verse numbers in text or on the edge of text? Places for bold, underlining or italics? How to delineate untranslatable words or names until we have more guidance? How about footnotes? Font? Size? This is why I mentioned a style guide.

Ultimately, what this all leads to is using a common office productivity format for files that need to be worked on by more than one person, or are a work in progress. (PDFs are fine, even ideal for finished work) There are two formats that are extremely common, they interoperate nicely, and one of them has a completely free office productivity suite associated with it. The first is MS Office Word 97/2000, the most common of the .DOC formats in use. A lot of different products will open and save this format, including OpenOffice, which I will get to in a moment. The other format is the OpenDocument .ODT format. This is not as common as .DOC, but it is compatible with a lot of free software out there. The latest version of MS Office and load and save this format natively. Earlier versions of Office can do this with a freely available plug-in. Best of all, a really nifty, completely office productivity suite exists, called OpenOffice. It includes a word processor, spreadsheet, business graphics, business drawing (ala Visio), and database programs. It natively writes almost any flavor of .DOC, as well as .ODT. And best yet, it will natively write PDF's of your document files. (Cannot read them , though.) A version is available for almost any OS you can possibly think of. It is the only office productivity tool I have used for the last 10 years. you can download it at www.openoffice.org

The reason you need something like a wiki, a website or a forum is so that people working on diverse parts of this project can have one, central place to go for information they need. If it is a website, it can also act as a repository for finished work, as well as a place to keep material that is being worked on collobratively. I may have enough space on my web hosting site to accommodate this project. I also have a free domain name I can register for this project. At minimum, this can be an FTP site, but it cal also be so much more. (I see an FTP site has already been offered. Good!) Others, better than I need to organize the needed tools there.

Quote from: Tìmuiäyä'itan
sìlronsem= clever (adjective)
So first part: sìlronsem lu tute = Clever the man.
I know (meanwhile, not when I wrote it) that KJV translates "blessed the man", but if you look into the Hebrew text it uses a word different from "to bless", a word that is rather seldom and hard to translate. It is like "to be pronounced happy" or, if I can trust my dictionary, it is also somehow connected with doing a thing in a good and clever way, so the difference of being clumsy (I cannot think of a word for this in English yet), so I used clever. What do you guys think of it?

Could you use lefpom (happy) here? This might work out to lefpoma tute...

Quote from: Tìmuiäyä'itan
ke tìran= not walk
ìlä säfpìl= following/via/by idea
<ay>ska'a<yu><yä>= Plural marker <ay> + ska'a (=destroy) + nominative agent noun deriving affix <yu> (add this and you get a doer from the verb, like do+<er> in English resulting in doer, same for hunt+<er> etc, here be destroy+<er>) + Genitive marker <yä>
-> destroyers's (is this the correct English spelling for several destroyers put to Genitive, or would it be destroyers'?)
<tì>siltsan<yä>= noun deriving prefix <tì> + sìltsan (=good) + Genitive marker <yä>
-> Goodness' (or good's if you could say this, I mean the goodness as a concept)

I don't think you can stack noun cases like that. A noun can only take one case. See http://forum.learnnavi.org/language-updates/genitive-case-refinement-declension-of-tsaw/, where the use of the genitive case is being discussed at length.

Quote from: Tìmuiäyä'itan
Quote from: Col Quaritch
so heres a question on loging out of the message in a letter from Dr Frommer he spelled his name Paul in navi Pawl. So to be correct would Jesus be spelled Jesws? Just a thought something to work out as a group next word I would like us to navi up or find a good = is Lord
He spelled his name Pawl because there is the a before the a, so this way it is possible. But as far as I think w cannot stand as a vowel on its own, so Jesus ist just nice I think.

You can have runs of vowels in Na`vi. A good example is kiyevameie. The reason, I think, that Paul Frommer uses Pawl as his Na`vi name again has to do with Na`vi dipthongs. The Na`vi vowel 'U' can only be pronounced in its long form, like the 'O' in 'do'. So if you tried to pronounce 'Paul' using Na`vi single vowels, you would have P-'aah' 'ouh' 'l'. Wouldn't sound anything like 'Paul'. But if you use the Na`vi dipthong 'aw', which is pronounced like the 'OW' in 'now', you are much closer to the English dipthong 'au'. Thus, we have Pawl, which sounds pretty close to 'Paul'. The Na`vi dipthongs (aw, ew, ay, ey) are much more important than English dipthongs, because they stand in for important common vowel sounds. And Na`vi vowels, as far as I know, do not change pronunciation like our pitiful English vowels do. Take some time to really get to know them. You will be glad you did!
« Last Edit: March 19, 2010, 01:50:58 am by `Eylan Ayfalulukanä »

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Offline Tseyk Tìriuä

  • Uniltìranyu
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #90 on: March 19, 2010, 01:55:19 am »
@Tìmuiäyä'itan
I have made a few revisions...the current "in the beginning" using krr followed by the adjective form of sngä'i. (kawkrr! Krr slayu nga na'viyä hapxì; it would seem that krr used with and adjective would be appropriate for depicting a specific time) Also because the name proposed for God that I am using is Yawä...it is acceptable to use the ergative ending in my opinion..although it seems that personal nouns probably shouldn't end in the genitive. Also I was reluctant to use "sky" for heaven as it reflects a degree of tangibility.


Tengkrr tìsngä'i Yawäl peyä tsenget ulte kifkey Yawä’evangäti ngamop.

Offline Letxepa tirea

  • Tawtute
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Karma: 4
  • Txrrk sweyn
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #91 on: March 19, 2010, 02:20:22 am »
Oeyä irayo ma tìmuiäyä'itan!

Right now I have very little knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary. I have been using the vocabulary pdf for words. So criticism is welcome and appreciated.

Ma Eywayä_tawtute:
Quote
1 Ulte nìwotx tawtute-a atxkxe
Okay, so you want to say skypeople land instead of kifkey. No prob with that. But what you say here is rather skypeopleish land. And you put that adjectival attributive marker "a" with a noun, which is not possible if I'm right.

You have two nouns, tawtute and atxkxe, and you want one to be describing the other (tawtute describe atxkxe), so tawtute is to be an attributive (Anybody with with deeper language theory knowlegde can confirm my use of terms?)

So firt, you have to make tawtute an adjective that would maybe translate tawtuteish. For that there is the adjective deriving prefix le. Just put le in front of the noun you have, and you make it an adjective:

letawtute

Note the words on our signature: Bible leNa'vi Project. Same thing here, Na'vi is usually a noun be it's used to describe the Bible we wanna get, so we put le before it.

Let's go to the "a" thing:
If you have an adjective, and you want to use it as attributive, i.e. to describe a noun, like here atxkxe, you need to mark it as attributive. That for you put an a to it. Like in lora lì'fya - beautiful language. As in Na'vi you are a bit more free about word order than in English, you can not only say beautiful language, but also language beautiful. That would put the "a" to the other end of the word: lì'fya alor. So the "a" always goes with that side of the adjective, that is closest to the noun it describes.

As for adjectives build with "le", there is a special rule. If the noun is after the adjective, you put the "a" as usual-> letawtutea atxkxe. But if you put it the other way round, there is already the "le", marking the word to be an attributive adjective, so you leave the a out -> atxkxe letawtute.

I don't want to offend you in case you did know these things already, but I think it's a good thing to write down the basics, so those who are newer to the language get also learn a bit. If I made any mistakes or you have further questions, I beg you to tell.

That all being said, I'd put it differently. You say tawtuteish land, I'd say tawtute's land: atxkxe sawtuteyä or sawtuteyä atxkxe.
Adding the Genitive to a noun marks it as the "owner" of the other noun. Neytiriyä tskow -> Neytiri's bow. It's not always a proper owner but describes also the bigger thing that the noun belongs to: Omatikayayä tsamsiyu -> Omatikaya's warrior -> warrior of the Omatikaya.
You might wonder about sawtute being a typo. It's not. Because it's not one skyperson's land, but the land of all (Plural) skypeople, you have to put the skypeople in Plural, that goes by adding "ay" in front of it (only if it is more than 3 of them. For a party of 2 and 3 the Na'vi have seperate affixes: me and pxe).
So you add "ay" in front of tawtute: *aytawtute. I put the asterisk in front of it because it is still a false form, as "ay" causes lention. Lention is the changing of sounds (and thus letters) because of other letters being before them. It's for the ease of pronounciation, but it's a rule you have to stick to. I cannot think of any lention in English, but I am sure there are some as well, most languages should have this.

Now, what happens is that the following letter "t" changes to "s": aysawtute. There is not a change with every letter, only some do change. This is usually described in all the grammar and Phonologies I've seen so far around. Here's the same thing again on the Na'vi wikiibook.

Now in the case of "ay" you can leave it out when it causes lention. Because you would know: This word should have a "t " rather than an "s" in the beginning, so you know: Okay, it's plural, without it having "ay".

So sawtute.

Thank you again. I was confused on what lenition meant and I forgot about being able to use "yä" for possession. So here is a fixed version.

1 Ulte nìwotx sawtuteyä atxkxe


Quote
Quote
(was) 'aw-a mokri sí ‘aw-a pongu.
was= lamu: lu + infix am for past. You put the infixes for tense before the second last vowel in the word. If there is only one vowel, you have to use that one ;) Here's more on the infixes we have.

I would have used lì'fya (=language) instead of mokri, but this is only personal preference. I think the accent on the must be the other way round though ;)


No mistakes I find in this part, but when you put the two together...

Either you say that: The whole earth was one language's and one people's, then you'd have to put language and people into Genitive (see above, put "yä" after the noun. That is, in these cases you'd need only "ä" as stated here.)

Or you say the whole earth had one language and people. As there is no "to have", you have to use the dative, which would roughly translate: For the world is one language and people.

In this case you change the noun of the first part of the sentence, adding the dative suffix (u/ru) to the term for earth or land. If you use the dative construct, you'd also have to have the verb lu to be the first verb in the sentence, followed by the dative, as pointed out here.

I think your last translation idea would be closest to the original text. So that would be

1 Ulte nìwotx sawtuteyä atxkxeru lamu 'awa li'fya sí ‘awa pongu.

Quote
Quote
2 Ulte za<ím>’u hasey
I think you might have to add a po there (=it). And I am not sure if you can say it came done. I am also not sure what King James means with "it came to pass". In the Hebrew text there is (as far as I can tell) only a word that would say: See! Look! followed by saying they wandered eastward...

So I'm not gonna comment on that one further, as I am not sure if I understand the English right.

"Came to pass" essentially means "it happened"

so here is the fix:
2 Ulte po zaím’u hasey

Quote
Quote
ay-fo t<ol>íran ftu alím

alìm is an adverb, accoding to Taronyu's dictionary. That means it's a word that does describe a verb. Like saying he is hunting Palulukans far away: Po t<er>aron alìm Falulukan. I put Palulukan in Plural here, yes, lention!

I have also not found an adjective for "far", so I think you'd have to use lìm which means: "to be far":

ayfo tolìran ftu tseng a po lìm
they walk (perfect-aspect) from place that: it is far.

I am not sure about the relative clauses with a. If anyone could confirm this is the way to do it or correct me, that would be just marvellous. :P

What if I used lu and then used alím as an adverb. so we would have:

ayfo tolìran ftu tseng, po lu alìm

Quote
Quote
ay-fo t<ol>aron txan-a atxkxe tsní t<ol>ok atxkxe-a (Shinar)
I have no idea why you use hunt here...? Tsnì goes I think only with a few verbs, can't remember which, but I'm sure taron was none of them. Why not just use ulte to connect the next sentence?
tok is a transitive verb. That means, thee are two nouns to it, one that does a thing and one that is affected. The doer gets the ergative ending(ìl/l), the affected thing gets the accusative ending(ìt/tì/t).
It would translate as "to be" like lu, though lu would mean to actually be something (oe lu skxawng) and tok would mean to be at some place (oel tok kelutralìt). Oh, wait, that works fine, I reread it. You could also use kelku si, to stress on them actually living there and not only staying overnight. But tok is fine as well.
Atxkxe without "a" ;) Had that already. Maybe you can use san...sìk turning it to direct speech, like saying: and they lived in land: Shinar. Or you say they lived in the land that is called Shinar: ayfol tok atxkxe a Shinar sy<awn>aw.

But didn't they first find (run) the land?

I used "to hunt" because it was the closest verb to "to find". In the original KJV its says they found the land of Shinar. Then later it says they dwelt in the land. I also think I made a good transliteration of Shinar: Yìnär. "Y" makes a "J" noise which is the closest thing Na'vi has to a sh noise.

ayfo tolaron txana txkxe ulte ayfol tolok atxkxe a Yìnär syawnaw

Quote
Quote
ulte ay-fo k<ol>elku si tsatsing.
Ah, here yo have it. Okay, so I am not sure what you wanted to express with them hunting and occupying... ???

I think you want to say tsa tseng instead of tsatsing, right? Or did I get this one wrong, too?

In the dictionary it shows Tsatseng for "there, that place" so that's how I put it down.

Also now looking at it I could ad an adposition into there to show that they are living "in" that place.

ulte ayfo kolelku si mì tsa tseng.

Though I'm not sure I put it in the right spot...

Quote
Quote
Ulte ay-fo s<ol>i mokri aylaru-hu pongu

There is a word for speak in Na'vi (plltxe), why you use a construct of si and mokri? I also think si would have to go after mokri in this case.

aylaru and hu seems not to make sense to me. Why not say: aylaru ponguä (=to the others of the people)?

Why I didn't use those? Because I didn't know of their existence :( I'm still new and don't know alot of the vocab. I'm mostly using the dictionary pdf and the grammar page on the main site. But now armed with the wikibook site I feel my endeavors will be more successful.

Anyway the new translation of this line:

Ulte ayfo plloltxe aylaru ponguä

Quote
Quote
“Níwin, tung ayoeng si ay-tskxe fpi ay-kelku, ulte si ay-fo a-txur.”
I think there is no ""-marks in Na'vi. At least they do not use them alone. They have words to indicate the beginning (san) and end (sìk) of direct speech.

I have a feeling like stone for the Na'vi is not something you produce, but that is lying around. I guess it would only refer to the mere rock. So maybe it would make no sense to say: Make stone.
Btw, the verb si has to be in post position to the thing done, and I think it is not used in the sense of "to produce". Kelku si is not "build a house", but make what you usually make with a house -> live, dwell. So tskxe si would be like: "do, what you usually do with a stone/rock". So what you usually do with it? Throw it, climb it?... you'd also have to make aytskxe to ayskxe or skxe, due to lention ;)

One possibility I see, is use sleyku (=produce) along with something like txula (=construct) and 'u (=thing). We have to make up words in such cases, so maybe something like:

ayfol slameyku txula'u (or better tula'u -> lention, plural ;))

txula'u would then roughly translate as build-thing, so material to build or construct. We would have to see if this would be comprehensible by others. But we are also free here. We cannot assume there will ever be all words we need for the bible, so we have to make up our own words in a way, it is comprehensible for people. This is what bible translaters have been doing throughout the ages, there's no way around, only a way to avoid doing it too often (and thus becoming incomprehensible). Luther shaped the modern German language by his bible translation, our language would be different now if it wasn't for him bringing the bible to every house.

Right, I understand. Though once again my knowledge of vocab was limited. Now I believe i have a stronger platform from which to continue my endeavor.

So here is the new line:
San, Níwin, tung ayoeng slìyeyku tula'u, ulte ayfol sìyi txur, sìk.

Quote
Quote
Ulte tawtute s<ol>i txur-a ay-tskxe-íl tsní kenong meyp ay-tskxe-ti, ulte  
I already wrote on si being post positional and it not meaning "to produce" above, as well as I wrote about the use of tsnì. I actually just found a forum entry that points out tsnì to go with intransitive verbs, so not with produce ;)

I am not sure what you want to say with strong and weak stones... ???

I said strong and weak stones because I could think of nothing else to fit the translation. Now I have an idea.

Ulte sawtute lur tula'u tup tskxe,


Quote
As for slime and brick, I guess the text just wants to point out that it has been a good and strong way to build houses (helku -> lention  ;D) So, if you say the houses were made with build material of stone, you'd have that meaning in in a way, as the Na'vi do not live in stone houses as far as I know. There is the verb yìm (=bind) which could maybe be used to make up a word that could go for mortar, something like stone-binding mass or something.

But honestly, I wrote about 2 hours on this one and cannot think too much any more, and I am hungry. Will be back later. I hope I didn't scare yo off though, tell me where I'm wrong, I'm just trying to get an understanding of yor translation and tell about the mistakes I think there are. I am always a bit concerned about my long messages decouraging people... please don't be. Let's talk on this.

Yawä ayngahu

Mortar could be txula'u ayìm'u (or Construct-thing binding-thing)  I don't know if you could put that together into one word or not and maybe over time the word would simplify into txulaìm or something similar.

Alright now for the entire fixed passage:
1 Ulte nìwotx sawtuteyä atxkxeru lamu 'awa li'fya sí ‘awa pongu. 2 Ulte po zaím’u hasey ayfo tolìran ftu tseng, po lu alìm, ayfo tolaron txana txkxe ulte ayfol tolok atxkxe a Yìnär syawnaw; ulte ayfo kolelku si mì tsa tseng. 3 Ulte ayfo plloltxe aylaru ponguä san, Níwin, tung ayoeng slìyeyku tula'u, ulte ayfol sìyi txur, sìk. Ulte sawtute lur tula'u tup tskxe, ulte txula'u ayìm'u.

I believe it is decided that we use Yawä for God's personal name.

Also for lord why not use fra'uyä eyktan (everything's leader)?
Jesus' true name Immanuel name means "God with us" so Jesus could be Yawängahu or Yawämì'rrta (god on earth).





Oe zola'u, Oe tsole'a, Oe skola'a

Offline Txur’Itan

  • Olo'eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3214
  • Karma: 82
  • fahewìri oe srìyevew txìmur...
    • CPN Skola
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #92 on: March 19, 2010, 03:00:24 am »
@Tìmuiäyä'itan
I have made a few revisions...the current "in the beginning" using krr followed by the adjective form of sngä'i. (kawkrr! Krr slayu nga na'viyä hapxì; it would seem that krr used with and adjective would be appropriate for depicting a specific time) Also because the name proposed for God that I am using is Yawä...it is acceptable to use the ergative ending in my opinion..although it seems that personal nouns probably shouldn't end in the genitive. Also I was reluctant to use "sky" for heaven as it reflects a degree of tangibility.

The genitive endings can be placed on all noun types; so far.  However, you should not have a noun object own a Proper noun, or a pronoun unless you are referring to a slave.  In which case you might need to say.

I'tsìpä Olo'Eyktanä tute/sute ~ Egypt's Leader's person/people

spe’etu ~ captive (prisoner)
tute ~ person

Na'vi => Na'viyä
Oe => Oe
Ngenga/Nga => Ngengeyä/Ngeyä
po/poe/poan => po/poe/poanä
ayoeng/awnga => ayoengä/awnga
Eywa => Eywa
Yawä => Yawä
私は太った男だ。


Offline riftmaster

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 1
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #93 on: March 19, 2010, 04:12:34 am »
I have the FTP done, I have to go out now but If anyone wants the details please send me a PM!

Irayo




Offline Letxepa tirea

  • Tawtute
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Karma: 4
  • Txrrk sweyn
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #94 on: March 19, 2010, 05:10:07 am »
Also I was reluctant to use "sky" for heaven as it reflects a degree of tangibility.

Why not do Swoka txkxe io taw(Sacred land above sky)? Or maybe: kaw'it kusame atxkxe (not at all seen(spiritual) land)?





Oe zola'u, Oe tsole'a, Oe skola'a

Offline Col Quaritch

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
  • Karma: 54
  • Navi! The other white meat.
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #95 on: March 19, 2010, 08:55:52 am »
I believe it is decided that we use Yawä for God's personal name.

Also for lord why not use fra'uyä eyktan (everything's leader)?
Jesus' true name Immanuel name means "God with us" so Jesus could be Yawängahu or Yawämì'rrta (god on earth).

THATS PERFECT! That is just what I have been trying to hammer out, whats the rest of the project members think? The old Colonel is happy with this translation here.


Offline TesterScot

  • Tawtute
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: 9
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #96 on: March 19, 2010, 09:24:14 am »
I believe it is decided that we use Yawä for God's personal name.

Also for lord why not use fra'uyä eyktan (everything's leader)?
Jesus' true name Immanuel name means "God with us" so Jesus could be Yawängahu or Yawämì'rrta (god on earth).

THATS PERFECT! That is just what I have been trying to hammer out, whats the rest of the project members think? The old Colonel is happy with this translation here.

Sounds good to me!



Irayoru 'Awve Tìkameie for the profile pic. Go to http://www.mpandoraln.weebly.com to see his ongoing work.
Brand New Learner - please correct my usage 8-)

Offline Tìmuiäyä'itan

  • 'Eveng
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Karma: 6
  • fìtseng kllkxem oe ke tsun 'u alahe sivi
    • Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #97 on: March 19, 2010, 10:50:15 am »
Oel awngat kameie!

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä
Additionally, a style needs to be agreed on for how finished text should appear. How are verses arranged? Verse numbers in text or on the edge of text? Places for bold, underlining or italics? How to delineate untranslatable words or names until we have more guidance? How about footnotes? Font? Size? This is why I mentioned a style guide.
I agree completely with you that these things need to be cleared up. But I am not sure about this being the time to do so. Of course, if we set everything nicely at the moment, we won't have the hassle later.
On the other hand, I'd like to have the overhead in the beginning as small as possible. So if we are now translating, styling, organizing our efforts etc all in the same time, we might run ot of manpower quickly.
I feel that it is not pressing now to know which words to underline or set bold etc. Abot the untranslatable words I think we might have to put up a list.

About the pdf, openoffice.org and organization:
My idea was, that we have one writer, who will put everything we agree on into a document which I thought to be an pdf. I don't like doc because it always shows up wrongly in my NeoOffice. And I think there is no need for us to do a change to it.
I thought as follows: The writer will get everything in the pdf and control it, edit it etc. He can easily use openoffice to create it and then push the "save as pdf" button. The advantage is: All translators and other people don't need to get openoffice an their machines, but can use their standard pdf viewer, whatever that might be.
If we think there is a mistake in the pdf, we contact the writer and he corrects it. Or we discuss it here, if the writer is maybe not sure about which is correct.
The idea is, as you see, that we have one central place for publishing, and it's not everybody writing to the same document, and nobody is sure whether he can change it or some change too quickly, hassles you can run into with a wiki.
I think this is an easy and few overhead way (we needn't set up a wiki and control everything that is written there etc), at least for the beginning. If we find out that this rather hinders work then support it after a while, we can easily switch to a wiki. At that point we might have gotten an idea about what is important in the project and what not, so which categories to set up in the wiki etc...
My problem in a wiki is, that I am never sure if I have seen all pages. In a pdf I can tell...

It is also imaginable, that we have 2 writers, if one cannot get after the work for timepressure and whatnot. They just shouldn't be too many, so they can still oversee what's going on among them.

But if you know a way to get everything done easily with a wiki or website or whatnot, we can also agree on that. At the moment we have nothing but this thread. Riftmaster is about to create the pdf, he said he'll be online again with his computer aroiund monday. So if he says he wouldn't want the pdf and prefer a website, that would be a good enough reason to use another way of getting things together. I am cool with anything that works, but I do not feel like doing organizational work, I rather translate and second-read other translations. This is what I feel I am best at and what gives me the most fun around here. But hey, there are plenty people who would maybe like to help but are too unsure about the language and know web-tech by heart. God willing, someone will show up and help us out here.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä
Could you use lefpom (happy) here? This might work out to lefpoma tute...
Yeah, I could ;) As I said I thought about it myself. But I'd rather do a lefpom lu tute...

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä
I don't think you can stack noun cases like that. A noun can only take one case.
I know. But I do not see where I have put more than one case to a noun. I stacked some in- pre- and affixes maybe. But cases are something different. A case is in Na'vi ergative, genitive, dative, accusative. And I wonder, the -rì ending should go here as well (was it called topic marker? don't remember) and also the vocative, which has no ending but a preput ma like in ma tsmukan should by my understanding also be a case. I do not see where I have mixed them together, maybe point the word out to me, to make me kame  :)

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä
You can have runs of vowels in Na`vi. A good example is kiyevameie. The reason, I think, that Paul Frommer uses Pawl as his Na`vi name again has to do with Na`vi dipthongs. The Na`vi vowel 'U' can only be pronounced in its long form, like the 'O' in 'do'. So if you tried to pronounce 'Paul' using Na`vi single vowels, you would have P-'aah' 'ouh' 'l'. Wouldn't sound anything like 'Paul'. But if you use the Na`vi dipthong 'aw', which is pronounced like the 'OW' in 'now', you are much closer to the English dipthong 'au'. Thus, we have Pawl, which sounds pretty close to 'Paul'. The Na`vi dipthongs (aw, ew, ay, ey) are much more important than English dipthongs, because they stand in for important common vowel sounds. And Na`vi vowels, as far as I know, do not change pronunciation like our pitiful English vowels do. Take some time to really get to know them. You will be glad you did!
Yeah, English vowels... takes a while to get into that. But apart from that: You gave the long answer I wasn't capable of giving, but this is more or less what I meant (though I forgot about English Paul and Na'vi Pawl sounding differently, Pawl is just how we pronounce Paul in German... ;D)

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
"Came to pass" essentially means "it happened"

so here is the fix:
2 Ulte po zaím’u hasey

Meanwhile I think I read somewhere to not use po for "it", but rather use something like tsa'u... Not sure of that though. I desperately need some grammar book...

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
ayfo tolìran ftu tseng, po lu alìm
I am not sure whether we can put meaning into punctuation marks, so the comma alone might not do and you'd have to use ulte (they come from a place and it was far away), or you need to form a subclause: They came to a place, which was far away. I still have the feeling like far away takes up the position of an adjective in English here.  As lu would always say "A is B", we have A as "which" but we have no B, wonder if that works. B cannot be an adverb as I understand it.
Plus mind "it" being translated with po or not.

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
because it was the closest verb to "to find".
"to find/discover" = run. Page 9 in my version of the dictionary. You might want to redownload it or see if there's a new version of it around. Taronyu seems to update it rather often. My actual version is 9.661 and I have not checked for updates today. This language is evolving quickly and there seems to be a few new words every day.

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
I also think I made a good transliteration of Shinar: Yìnär.
Okay, I thought we wanted to stick with the English names. But if not, that's also cool. I am just not sure if I got your argument. As far as I thought Na'vi y would be pronounced like "y" in English or "j" in German... And I have a feeling that the "a" in Shinar would be pronounced like the "a" in "father", which would not be the Na'vi ä, but you know... English vowels, a story of its own... ;)

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
In the dictionary it shows Tsatseng for "there, that place" so that's how I put it down.
You are right, I didn't see this. Sorry.

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
ulte ayfo kolelku si
As kelku is no verb itself the infix would go with si -> kelku soli

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
Why I didn't use those? Because I didn't know of their existence Traurig I'm still new and don't know alot of the vocab.
As I said, the dictionary is updated almost daily if not several times a day (this is btw what I thought our pdf to work like). I am still to find a good and up to date grammar I understand. Wikibooks is fine, but it seems some things here in the forums are more recent, and I find it hard to keep track.

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
Ulte ayfo plloltxe aylaru ponguä
If I understand it right, "ll" would be seen as vowel here, so the <ol> infix would go p<here>lltxe

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
San, Níwin, tung ayoeng slìyeyku tula'u, ulte ayfol sìyi txur, sìk.
Just a question of understanding: Why yo put tung?

Quote from: KJV
Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly.
You want tung take the part of "let"? I think the way to express this in Na'vi is to se the <iv> infix on the verb that you "let" be done (check [urlhttp://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Na%27vi/Verbs#Mood]here[/url] under sage as optative), so you take slìyeyku and put the <iv> infix there (beware, you have to merge it with the future tense you use, but you could as I see it as well get rid of the future there), so you end up with slìyeveku (Future and Subjunktive, like in kìyevame) or with sliveyku (just subjunctive).

Now I know where you have the txur from. I didn't recall it being there, as I have the Luther bible in my head, and it isn't there. Luther translates as "form brick and burn them". I gotta look at the KJV more often... I know we decided upon that to be the base.

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
Ulte sawtute lur tula'u tup tskxe
I don't understand lur. Typo or me being stupid? tup means "instead of". Now I wonder how understandable it is to tell the Na'vi, the people made constrct-things instead of stones. The Na'vi would maybe ask: Why instead of? Did they produce rocks before? And what for? To throw at people? ;D Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit.
But how about sayin "in order to build houses"? -> "for the sake of the building of houses" -> fpisluseyk helkuä (fpi + sl<us>eyk <ay>kelku<ä> lentioned!).
If you say you like yours better, I'm cool with it. I don't wanna appear as the guy who has to critizise everyone, just giving my thoughts...

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
Mortar could be txula'u ayìm'u (or Construct-thing binding-thing)  I don't know if you could put that together into one word or not and maybe over time the word would simplify into txulaìm or something similar.
Time will tell. But this seems to be a word Frommer will never come up with, as the Avatar don't use mortar, and the sawtute don't use it anymore building houses... they appear to me to be all plastics and metal...
I'd leave it in the long form for the beginning, so people reading the bible will have a chance to understand where the word comes from...

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
Also for lord why not use fra'uyä eyktan (everything's leader)?
Let me be a bit provocative here: Why not eyktan alone? That's what early christians did, saying kyrios. For people back then it was clear: Kyrios is the Emperor in Rome. And the christians used the term for their God...
Plus: There is also a secular usege to the term "lord" today, if you look into the upper house of the British parliament. So maybe we could really use eyktan, maybe just capitalising it: EYKTAN.
Or eykyu, like <eyk> causative infix and <yu> noun deriving affix, so this would end up in something like: Causer. -> He is the primal causer of everything...

just some thoughts, but maybe we need this at another place where the Lord is referred to by a similar meaning.

I would have not distinguished now between the terms "Lord", "God" etc, but it makes sense to me doing so. I want to throw in a small thought. Usually, the term LORD is used where Hebrew has the name of God: YHWH. And "God" goes where Hebrew says "Elohim" -> God(s). So I wonder if it would be sensible to use Yawä for "Lord", and for "God"... hmm, maybe gotta think on that for another while...

Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
Jesus' true name Immanuel name means "God with us" so Jesus could be Yawängahu or Yawämì'rrta (god on earth).
I wouldn't think of Jesus' true name as of Immanuel, as Mary named Him Jesus according to the command of God:
Quote from: Mt 1,31
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
I know that verse in Jesaja as well, that speaks of Immanuel, but you can translate Hebrew "name" also with reputation and such, so truely, Jesus WAS the "God with us", but he was calles Jesus, or rather something like Joshua, Jesus being the Latinized form of the name.

But I still think we can freely put up descriptions and names for God and Jesus, because we have to get the message throu, not the text. So I think it would not be a too big problem if the names weren't in sync, as there are also many different names and descriptions in the bible.
Anyhow, if we agree to one way of putting it, I shall follow the rules.

Quote from: Tseyk Tìriuä
Also I was reluctant to use "sky" for heaven as it reflects a degree of tangibility.
Quote from: Eywayä_tawtute
Why not do Swoka txkxe io taw(Sacred land above sky)? Or maybe: kaw'it kusame atxkxe (not at all seen(spiritual) land)?
I just wonder whether the bible means the place where "God lives", as heaven, or the sky above us, that covers earth. I think it's more what we call sky today:
Quote from: KJV
And God called the firmament Heaven.
Quote from: KJV
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night
Quote from: KJV
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth
Quote from: KJV
and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven


Okay, that for now. Kìyevame!
srungìri ftära tsyokxìl ngeyä
ke ivomum futa pesuru
lu srung skiena tsyokxta ngeyä
ulte Jesus a nerìn ayfo pamlltxe
san sutehu lu keltsun
slä Yawähu frakem tsunslu sìk.

Offline riftmaster

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 1
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #98 on: March 19, 2010, 10:59:11 am »
 might need some help to get started as there have been so many suggestions I am finding it hard to keep track, so if someone with better navi knowlage can start collecting the information until my computer is fixed, then I can take over from there

if anyone can help?


Irayo!




Offline Tìmuiäyä'itan

  • 'Eveng
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Karma: 6
  • fìtseng kllkxem oe ke tsun 'u alahe sivi
    • Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott
Re: Bible in Na'vi
« Reply #99 on: March 19, 2010, 11:02:59 am »
Which program would you probably use to edit the pdf? Cause then we could use the same program and handing over the raw data would be easier.
srungìri ftära tsyokxìl ngeyä
ke ivomum futa pesuru
lu srung skiena tsyokxta ngeyä
ulte Jesus a nerìn ayfo pamlltxe
san sutehu lu keltsun
slä Yawähu frakem tsunslu sìk.

 

Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines | XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, LightStorm Entertainment or The Walt Disney Company.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi