Realive clauses and their stacking

[Tìmuiäyä'itan]

Kaltxì!

I hope someone can help me with the use of "a" and relative clauses.

I have somewhere gotten the info, that this "a" works like the "a" in adjectives (hope I got that right).

One question I have is: When I have the relative clause in the beginning, I would use rather "a fi'u", "a fi'ut" etc instead of "faw, futa" as the a needs to be on the side of the described noun, right?

The other question is, whether I do have to repeat the described noun, if I can repeat it, if can leave it out in the main clause (probably not!) etc...

So, as an exaple: Tsu'tey kills the beast that Neytiri was hunting.

Possible translations (please tell me which is right and if there are other ways):

Tsu'teyl tspang ioangìt a Neytiril tìrmaron tsat. (okay, here I see I have also a problem with deictica!)
Tsu'teyl tspang ioangìt a tìrmaron Neytiril.
Tsu'tey tspang a Neytiril tìrmaron ioangìt.


Another question: If I have several relative clauses one behind the next, all describing the same noun, do I connect them with sì or ulte?

Or do I just have to break down the whole construct into smaller parts that are easier to handle?

Kìyevame!


Update: Oh sorry, wrong forum. Skxawng lu oe, I meant to post at the beginner's forum. Could any mod just move the thread? Irayo!

[NeotrekkerZ]

I'd say:  Tsu'teyìl tspang ioangit a Neytirìl tarmaron.

ìrm would be "was just hunting"

EDIT:

Another question: If I have several relative clauses one behind the next, all describing the same noun, do I connect them with sì or ulte?

Best give an example.

[Tìmuiäyä'itan]

Irayo, so I wouldn't repeat the accusative (or maybe if it refers to the ergative, I'd not repeat this...)

ìrm would be "was just hunting"

Yes, I didn't want to take far past

Example for the stack:

Tsu'teyìl taron ioangit a Neytirìl tarmaron a kelku si mì na'rìng.

Sentences of that structure tend to appear rather often in the bible, so I ran into them in the bible translation project...

Kìyevame!

[NeotrekkerZ]

I wouldn't give a blanket rule for translating something like this.  You have to go by meaning not words.  For your particular case I would write


Tsu'teyìl taron ioangit a kelku si mì na'rìng ulte Neytiri taron.  Tsu'tey hunts the beast that lives in the forest and is hunted by Neytiri.    OR

Tsu'teyìl taron Neytiriyä ioangit atawnaron a kelku si mì na'rìng.  Tsu'tey hunts Neytiri's hunted beast that lives in the forest.

Bottom line is play around with the meaning a little.  X a Y a Z gets boring after awhile.

[Tìmuiäyä'itan]

Irayo!

ulte Neytiri taron

Not Neytirìl? So you would use ulte here and not sì.

I was afraid of some answer like this  , it breaks the whole poetry up. Gotta recheck my psalms now...

But basically I know, it's the meaning not the structure. But structure is here part of the poetry... gotta rearrange it.

nìtxan irayo!

[wm.annis]

The other question is, whether I do have to repeat the described noun, if I can repeat it, if can leave it out in the main clause (probably not!) etc...

It depends on the role the word is playing in the relative clause.  If it's just the subject or direct object, it will usually be obvious.  When you get adpositional phrases things get a bit trickier.

Tsu'teyl tspang ioangìt a Neytiril tìrmaron tsat. (okay, here I see I have also a problem with deictica!)

I don't think the anaphor (the deictic pronoun) is required here.  And if it were, it should be po, since a yerik is an animate being.

Tsu'teyìl tspang {ioangit {a tìrmaron Neytiril} }.

This one looks fine.

Tsu'tey tspang a Neytiril tìrmaron ioangìt.

This one needs to be adjusted, Tsu'teyìl tspang { { Neytiril tìrmaron a } ioangit }.

Another question: If I have several relative clauses one behind the next, all describing the same noun, do I connect them with sì or ulte?

If the syntax of the relative clauses is parallel, I'd use ulte, otherwise I'd break it up.

{ { Ngal tse'a ulte stawm a } yerikit } tìsyaron oel I'm going to hunt the yerik you see and hear.

Now this, "Tsu'tey hunts the beast, that Neytiri was hunting, that lives in the forest" is trickier.  I might add this to the list of things to ask Frommer about.  My naive solution is to use an anaphoric pronoun, because we have to use it in two different syntactic roles.

Tsu'teyìl taron { ioangit { a Neytiril poti tìrmaron ulte po kelku si mì na'ring } }.

But this is pure speculation.

Edit: fix a brace location

[Tìmuiäyä'itan]

But this is pure speculation.

Okay, so I'm having a pro-problem here *feeling intelligent*

Irayo for the explainaiting with the bracelets, that cleared things really up for me, good way of doing it.


One more question:

Tsu'teyìl tem futa Jake tìrol teri.

could be turned around like this:

Jake tìrol teri fì'u a tem Tsu'teyìl?

Or would it be fì'ut? Or would Tsu'tey lose the ergative?


Kìyevame!

srak?

[wm.annis]

Tsu'teyìl tem futa Jake tìrol teri.

could be turned around like this:

Jake tìrol teri fì'u a tem Tsu'teyìl?

Or would it be fì'ut? Or would Tsu'tey lose the ergative?

The only time we use a fì'u/fì'u a and related constructions is when we want to turn an entire phrase into a noun.  Since we have a word for "thing" (or even "arrow"), we don't need to use these constructions in your example.  (Also note: the verb rol is "sing"; tìrol is "song").

Tsu'teyìl toltem { swizawit { a Jake tsateri rol } }.

Here we do need anaphor, because the noun to which the relative clause is attached must be part of an adposition phrase in the relative clause (see this Canon section for a similar example from Frommer).  Adpositions cannot just float by themselves, like they can in English.

['eylan na'viyä]

Example for the stack:

Tsu'teyìl taron ioangit a Neytirìl tarmaron a kelku si mì na'rìng.

This is pure speculation, but maybe it could work like this too:

Tsu'teyìl taron ioangit a Neytirìl tarmaron teng a kelku si mì na'rìng.
i think this would have a slighly different meaning: the second relativeclause in the ulte construction would be a further specification whereas in the teng a construction it would be only an additional information.

Sorry if im wrong there, i dont know much more about english grammar than about the na'vi one. As im not a native english speaker i could be wrong with my intuition.

[Tìmuiäyä'itan]

Also note: the verb rol is "sing"; tìrol is "song"

Oh I know that usually, well, it was late...

The only time we use a fì'u/fì'u a and related constructions is when we want to turn an entire phrase into a noun.  Since we have a word for "thing" (or even "arrow"), we don't need to use these constructions in your example.

That's what I was about to say. I just realize tem is intransitive, so maybe I should have been using toltem... I wasn't thinking of the arrow, I was thinking about just anything Tsu'tey could have been shooting, like excercise shooting at trees or leafs or other targets...

My question aimed into another direction, I got a sentence from the canon to be sure I don't make a mistake here again

Oel new futa Taronyu kivä.

Can I turn the relative clause to the beginning:

Kivä Taronyu a fì'ut new oel.

And similarly with other related constructs as well? Or does the relative clause always go in the end of the sentence?

Kìyevame!

[wm.annis]

Oel new futa Taronyu kivä.

Can I turn the relative clause to the beginning:

Kivä Taronyu a fì'ut new oel.

And similarly with other related constructs as well? Or does the relative clause always go in the end of the sentence?

Correct.  The attributive phrase can come either before or after the noun it goes with, so long as a ends up in the right place.