A paragraph

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

First attempt at something that approaches prose.

Pelun falulukan mowana sawtute
(ulte pelun sawtute txusopu falulukan)

Sawtute ne falulukan lu txilora syuve.
Ftuea sawtute lu a stänì sì yom.
Hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem lu sawtute.
Falulukanìl ahol sterä`nì sawtutet a rusey slu fweltsyìp.
Ayfol munge kelkuti a fweltsyipa sawtute.
Eveng falulukanìl uvan si taron fweltsyìpa sawtutet.
Ayfol yom fwela sawtute a krrpe tìuvan susi ahasey.

Now its your turn to be a palulukan to the above paragraph!

[Hawnuyu atxen]

Kaltxì!
Tse, tung oeru fmi fwa eyawr si ngeyä pamrel

Pelun falulukanur sawtute lu pxasul
(ulte pelun sawtute txopu si falulukanur)

Sawtute falulukanur lu ftxìlora syuve.
Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom.
Hewnea vey sì hewnea ? lu sawtute.
Falulukanìl ahol sterä`nì sawtutet a lu rusey slä fwel.
Ayfol munge ne'ìm kelku fwela sawtutet.
Falulukanìl a lu 'eveng uvan si a lu taron fwela sawtuteru.
Ayfol yom fwela sawtutet krr a tìuvan susi lu hasey.


There were some problems with cases and some typos. With "fweltsyìp" you meant "a little broken"? (i don't know if it can be used for adjectives...)

My corrections:
1: "ne" means "to, towards (direction)", so it should rather be the dative on falulukan, and there was two typos in "ftìlor"
2: the "-a-" on adjs show what the adj modifies, but you don't need it, if you use "lu", and typo in "stä'nì"
3: i couldn't find the word "tärem", other than that it's good
4: i think it was just a typo that you wrote slu instead of "slä"
5: the "-ti" on "kelku" would mean that "they brought the home", but i think you wanted to write "they brought the sky-people home" (i wrote back home, but to home would be good/better)
6: this sentence is good you use " 'eveng" as an adj, but since we don't know if *"le'eveng" is correct, i did it with "a", also the "game is hunt", so it should be done with "a" too, and si-verbs are always intransitive, so sawtute should be in the dative instead of the accusative
7: you forgot the accusative on sawtute, "-pe-" could only used for questions (so "krrpe" is "when/what time") and at the end you need a verb, so it's "lu+adj"

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Kaltxì!
Tse, tung oeru fmi fwa eyawr si ngeyä pamrel

Pelun falulukanur sawtute lu pxasul
(ulte pelun sawtute txopu si falulukanur)

Understood, especially the txopu si part. I left the food part out of the title intentionally, as this is what I wanted the reader to 'discover'.

Sawtute falulukanur lu ftxìlora syuve.
Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom.
Hewnea vey sì hewnea ? lu sawtute.
Falulukanìl ahol sterä`nì sawtutet a lu rusey slä fwel.
Ayfol munge ne'ìm kelku fwela sawtutet.
Falulukanìl a lu 'eveng uvan si a lu taron fwela sawtuteru.
Ayfol yom fwela sawtutet krr a tìuvan susi lu hasey.


There were some problems with cases and some typos. With "fweltsyìp" you meant "a little broken"? (i don't know if it can be used for adjectives...)

'A little broken' is exactly the feeling I wanted to convey. There is no word yet for 'wounded' or 'crippled'. Many 'Rrta predators will catch a prey item, cripple it so it can't get away easily, and then let their young practice hunting and killing with it. I switched to 'broken' at the end because the poor tawtute would likely be in pretty bad shape before the falulukan 'eveng finally finished them off (or simply ate them alive, many predators simply eat their prey to death). The potential for a miserable death like this would make the skypeople especially fear and hate thanators.

My corrections:
1: "ne" means "to, towards (direction)", so it should rather be the dative on falulukan, and there was two typos in "ftìlor"

I see what you are saying here, as the dative would make that mean 'to the falulukan'.
Typos do not surprise me. I working on this when very tired and from rough notes.

2: the "-a-" on adjs show what the adj modifies, but you don't need it, if you use "lu", and typo in "stä'nì"

I see what you are saying here. Just seems awkward to my English-wired brain for there not to be a 'to' in there.

3: i couldn't find the word "tärem", other than that it's good

It is really txärem = 'bone',  which lenits to tärem when made plural. Skypeople's bones are easy to crunch up because they do not have carbon fiber in them. However, wouldn't the end of this be more like lu sawtuteru or lu ne sawtute? (I used the dative form.)

4: i think it was just a typo that you wrote slu instead of "slä"

Slä is the correct word here-- 'alive but broken(crippled)'.

5: the "-ti" on "kelku" would mean that "they brought the home", but i think you wanted to write "they brought the sky-people home" (i wrote back home, but to home would be good/better)

I see what you are saying, on closer examination. I also agree with you that 'to home' is the better wording choice.

6: this sentence is good you use " 'eveng" as an adj, but since we don't know if *"le'eveng" is correct, i did it with "a", also the "game is hunt", so it should be done with "a" too, and si-verbs are always intransitive, so sawtute should be in the dative instead of the accusative

I am still not quite sure what you did here, especially the second 'a'. The second 'lu' seems to also complicate things. Otherwise, your compartmentalization does make sense.

7: you forgot the accusative on sawtute, "-pe-" could only used for questions (so "krrpe" is "when/what time") and at the end you need a verb, so it's "lu+adj"

Missing the accusative is a definite mistake I shouldn't have made. So is the 'pe'. One thing missing in the dictionary is question marks in the definitions of pe words. But by now I should have caught that pe. The end treatment you did is very interesting, with the gerund treatment on uvan si and then the lu hasey. It makes perfect sense when read.

So in the end, we have:

Sawtute falulukanur lu ftxìlora syuve.
Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom.
Hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem lu sawtuteru.
Falulukanìl ahol sterä`nì sawtutet a lu rusey slä fwel.
Ayfol munge ne kelku fwela sawtutet.
Falulukanìl a lu 'eveng uvan si a lu taron fwela sawtuteru.
Ayfol yom fwela sawtutet krr a tìuvan susi lu hasey.



Thank you very much for working through this. Somehow, I am going to learn all this sutff!

[Hawnuyu atxen]

Understood, especially the txopu si part. I left the food part out of the title intentionally, as this is what I wanted the reader to 'discover'.

Ok, in that case mowan is ok

'A little broken' is exactly the feeling I wanted to convey. There is no word yet for 'wounded' or 'crippled'.

I see. Well, i still don't know if it's ok to use "-tsyìp" on adjs, but how about something like "tìsraw sawni"?

It is really txärem = 'bone',  which lenits to tärem when made plural. Skypeople's bones are easy to crunch up because they do not have carbon fiber in them. However, wouldn't the end of this be more like lu sawtuteru or lu ne sawtute? (I used the dative form.)

At least now i can use the "i was tired" excuse again on both aytärem and the dative on sawtute, whicg is completely right.

I am still not quite sure what you did here, especially the second 'a'. The second 'lu' seems to also complicate things. Otherwise, your compartmentalization does make sense.

Ok, now i have to admit, that after some thinking i found out that this sentence is still not correct, and like this i have no chance to correctly write it down (i got myself confused totally), so i'd rather say:

Falulukan sawtutehu/sawtuteru afwel uvan si a lu tìtusaron.
palulukans with sky-peoples play a game which is hunting

Missing the accusative is a definite mistake I shouldn't have made. So is the 'pe'. One thing missing in the dictionary is question marks in the definitions of pe words. But by now I should have caught that pe. Undecided  The end treatment you did is very interesting, with the gerund treatment on uvan si and then the lu hasey. It makes perfect sense when read.

Yeah, it took me a while to get to know that i can't use pe-words like i used them too...



Nìprrte', really. It helps me too if i look through what others write.

[Tängal]

Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom.

I would say: Ftue sawtutet tìstusä'nì sì tìyusom lu.

Hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem lu sawtuteru.

I think: Sawtuteyä vey sì tärem hawne lu. The flesh and bones of sky people are soft not flesh and bones are soft to sky people.

Falulukan sawtutehu/sawtuteru afwel uvan si a lu tìtusaron.

I think -hu is better. They surely want to be hunted

tìuvan susi

I would say uvan tìsusi, but I'm not sure

[Hawnuyu atxen]

Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom.

I would say: Ftue sawtutet tìstusä'nì sì tìyusom lu.

No, the tì-<us> would make the verbs turn into gerunds, so it would be "easy sky-people catching and eating is". What i wrote means "easy is sky-people-ACC catch and eat" (It's easy to catch and eat the sky-people).

Hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem lu sawtuteru.

I think: Sawtuteyä vey sì tärem hawne lu. The flesh and bones of sky people are soft not flesh and bones are soft to sky people.

The dative can be used as a way to possess something: "lu x oer" - "there's x to me".
Here it's: "(Hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem) lu sawtuteru."

tìuvan susi

I would say uvan tìsusi, but I'm not sure

That's something i thought about too, but i'm not sure either...

[Carborundum]

No, the tì-<us> would make the verbs turn into gerunds, so it would be "easy sky-people catching and eating is".

In other words, "catching and eating skypeople is easy", which is completely grammatical (except that sawtute should not be patientative).

What i wrote means "easy is sky-people-ACC catch and eat" (It's easy to catch and eat the sky-people).

This is not grammatical. Na'vi does not allow for multiple verbs to coexist peacefully in the same clause like this. You need to put the catching and eating in a clause of their own: ftue lu fwa sawtutet stä'nì yom.
Furthermore, sequential verbs do not require a conjunction. "Catch and eat" are sequential, because you do not do both simultaneously; rather, you first catch and then eat.

The dative can be used as a way to possess something: "lu x oer" - "there's x to me".
Here it's: "(Hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem) lu sawtuteru."

Correct. However, keep in mind that the verb is almost always clause-initial in this construction. Since this is prose, an exception is probably not out of the question.

[Hawnuyu atxen]

No, the tì-<us> would make the verbs turn into gerunds, so it would be "easy sky-people catching and eating is".

In other words, "catching and eating skypeople is easy", which is completely grammatical (except that sawtute should not be patientative).

I'd disagree, because although what you said is true, there are two things that makes it incorrect:
-no "-a-" on ftue, meaning that the lu at the end stand for it (sky-people are easy catching and eating).
-the accusative on sky-people (as you pointed out)

So it could be right, but only after changing theese.

What i wrote means "easy is sky-people-ACC catch and eat" (It's easy to catch and eat the sky-people).

This is not grammatical. Na'vi does not allow for multiple verbs to coexist peacefully in the same clause like this. You need to put the catching and eating in a clause of their own: ftue lu fwa sawtutet stä'nì yom.
Furthermore, sequential verbs do not require a conjunction. "Catch and eat" are sequential, because you do not do both simultaneously; rather, you first catch and then eat.

At least i can disagree on this too.
That sentence didn't say that after catching them, we'd eat them, only that it's easy to catch and eat them, so i still think that sentence should be correct. (in other words: it's just generally stating that it's easy to catch and eat the sky-people)
(the "to" in the english is just the translation... there is no form for infinitive in na'vi, so the "to" just pop up in the english)

The dative can be used as a way to possess something: "lu x oer" - "there's x to me".
Here it's: "(Hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem) lu sawtuteru."

Correct. However, keep in mind that the verb is almost always clause-initial in this construction. Since this is prose, an exception is probably not out of the question.

So it should rather be "Lu hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem sawtuteru" srak?

[Tängal]

I'd disagree, because although what you said is true, there are two things that makes it incorrect:
-no "-a-" on ftue, meaning that the lu at the end stand for it (sky-people are easy catching and eating).
-the accusative on sky-people (as you pointed out)

I just don't get that. Why not accusative? If not accusative then what? Sawtuteyä? I don't think it make sense. Easy is catching and eating and sawtute is referring to them, not to "easy".

So it should rather be "Lu hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem sawtuteru" srak?

Why? Word order is free, but it also bring the meaning. Here most important is lu so the concept of having or more precisely being someone's. I think more important in all this is hawne, so the soft. But this is not that important.

[Hawnuyu atxen]

I'd disagree, because although what you said is true, there are two things that makes it incorrect:
-no "-a-" on ftue, meaning that the lu at the end stand for it (sky-people are easy catching and eating).
-the accusative on sky-people (as you pointed out)

I just don't get that. Why not accusative? If not accusative then what? Sawtuteyä? I don't think it make sense. Easy is catching and eating and sawtute is referring to them, not to "easy".

That's because there's an adjective what refers not to the sky-people, but to the "catching and eating". Since in what you said there's no "-a-" on that adjective (what would say that it refers to the sky-people), the lu kind of takes it's place.
It's like the difference between "txantslusam-a na'vi" and "txantslusam na'vi lu".

In what i said (Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom), it's understood that not the sky-people, but carrying out the actions is easy.
You could write it in a longer form like: "Ftue lu fwa stä'nì sì yom sawtutet" - "easy is this-thing-that catching and eating the sky-people".

To answer your question, the only problem in what you said (I would say: Ftue sawtutet tìstusä'nì sì tìyusom lu.) with sawtute being in the accusative is that there's only one verb here (lu), whichi isn't transitive (and the lu here is still for connecting the adjective with the gerunds, so the word sawtute is like it isn't part of the sentence).
It would be correct -i think- if you used the genitive on sawtute though:
Ftue sawtuteyä tìstusä'nì sì tìyusom lu. - easy sky-people's catching and eating is / The catching and eating of sky-people is easy.


About the second part:
I know that word order doesn't matter, just Carborundum said that "the verb is almost always clause-initial in this construction", and if i understood it (correctly), he meant this.

[Carborundum]

No, the tì-<us> would make the verbs turn into gerunds, so it would be "easy sky-people catching and eating is".

In other words, "catching and eating skypeople is easy", which is completely grammatical (except that sawtute should not be patientative).

I'd disagree, because although what you said is true, there are two things that makes it incorrect:
-no "-a-" on ftue, meaning that the lu at the end stand for it (sky-people are easy catching and eating).
-the accusative on sky-people (as you pointed out)

So it could be right, but only after changing theese.

You're right that I'm wrong, however it's not for the reasons you list. The reason is rather that gerunds in Na'vi cannot take arguments.

At least i can disagree on this too.
That sentence didn't say that after catching them, we'd eat them, only that it's easy to catch and eat them, so i still think that sentence should be correct. (in other words: it's just generally stating that it's easy to catch and eat the sky-people)
(the "to" in the english is just the translation... there is no form for infinitive in na'vi, so the "to" just pop up in the english)

You're absolutely right that Na'vi does not have an infinitive form. That does not mean that to:s just "pop-up" at random when translating Na'vi to English.
Let's take a closer look at your sentence.

Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom

First point of interest is lu. Lu is a copula, which means that is must take exactly two arguments, a subject and a predicate (excepting idioms like "I think, therefore I am"). The predicate in your sentence is clearly ftue, that much is clear.
However, what is the subject? Is it sawtutet? Clearly not, since that is the object of stä'nì sì yom. Thus, your sentence is not grammatical.
If you do what I did and put all of sawtutet stä'nì sì yom in a subject clause, you're fine. Whether or not you put a conjunction between stä'nì and yom is a matter of taste; I'd say it's unnecessary, but I doubt it's incorrect.

The dative can be used as a way to possess something: "lu x oer" - "there's x to me".
Here it's: "(Hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem) lu sawtuteru."

Correct. However, keep in mind that the verb is almost always clause-initial in this construction. Since this is prose, an exception is probably not out of the question.

So it should rather be "Lu hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem sawtuteru" srak?

Right.

[omängum fra'uti]

Let me put the "stä'nì sì yom" argument to rest...  You're both approaching it ungrammatical.

First...

Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom

This is ungrammatical because you have three verbs (lu, stä'nì, and yom) with nothing to tie them together.  This would mean "Something is easy, then something catch and eat spy people".

Ftue lu sawtuteyä tìstusä'nì sì tìyusom

In English we can use subjects and obejcts with gerunds, but not so in Na'vi.  If we could this would likely be the way to do it, but we can't, so this is also ungrammatical.

Ftue lu fwa stä'nì sì yom sawtutet
This one is grammatically fine, though I'd use fkol in there with sawtutet as well.  You could also have said.

Nìftue sawtutet fkol stä'nì sì yom
Easily sky people are caught and eaten.

However, if you want to express that they are not actually being caught and eaten, you probably want the subjunctive in there to express that it WOULD be easy to catch and eat them.  (In a lot of cases in English where we would use the infinitive form, you'd use the subjunctive in Na'vi.  In some cases, such as with modals, it is required.)
Nìftue sawtutet fkol stivä'nì sì yivom

And yes, you would be fine leaving out sì, which would subtly change the meaning to "catch then eat", but that is fine.  Note that in most cases you can not use sì between verbs like that, but there are a few cases where you could, and this would be one.

Hewnea vey sì hewnea tärem lu sawtuteru

This would actually be...
Sawtuteri hewne lu vey sì tärem
Here soft is being used predicatively to say that the flesh and bones are soft, so no need for the -a- on hewne, which also saves duplicating it.  And for inalienable possession, such as a person's possession of their body parts, family, and such, you idiomatically use the topic rather than genitive or dative.  Both the genitive or dative WOULD carry the intended meaning, but would sound odd in Na'vi.

Falulukanìl ahol sterä`nì sawtutet a lu rusey slä fwel.

Here, rusey is a problem.  You can't use participles predicatively like that.  Trying to do so is trying to translate the English too literally.  What would the difference be between "*lu rusey" and "rerey"?  None.  So just say "rerey".  Now rusey is a special participle in that it can be used outside the context of a participle, but I believe that would mean something more like "a living thing" as a noun.  (I could be wrong here and it could indeed be used that way, I don't recall the exact discussion about rusey, but speaking in general, a participle couldn't be used like that normally.)
Falulukanìl ahol sterä'nì sawtutet a rerey slä lu fwel/tìsraw.

Falulukan sawtutehu/sawtuteru afwel uvan si a lu tìtusaron.

I would actually use fa here, not hu or dative.  They are playing a game using the sky people, hu suggests more of a mutual thing that the sky people are playing too, but one would argue in this case they are just game pieces.

Here, I'm a little sure what would be correct...  I asked Frommer about modifiers on si words, and he said it was ok, but I forgot to follow up asking what about modifiers between the word and si...  However it would certainly be fine to say...
Falulukan sawtutefa afwel lu tìtusaron a uvan si.
Or perhaps even...
Falulukan sawtutefa afwel tìtusaronä uvan si.

Ayfol yom fwela sawtutet krr a tìuvan susi lu hasey.

The gerund of a si verb is just the noun part, there is no *tìsusi or *tìuvan-susi.
Ayfol yom fwela sawtutet krr a fìuvan lu hasey.
You could also use maw krr for "after the game is finished".

[Hawnuyu atxen]

Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom

So in the end the only problem here was that it's not seen as "ftue lu (sawtutet stä'nì sì yom)" without the fwa?

Here, rusey is a problem.  You can't use participles predicatively like that.  Trying to do so is trying to translate the English too literally.  What would the difference be between "*lu rusey" and "rerey"?  None.  So just say "rerey".  Now rusey is a special participle in that it can be used outside the context of a participle, but I believe that would mean something more like "a living thing" as a noun.  (I could be wrong here and it could indeed be used that way, I don't recall the exact discussion about rusey, but speaking in general, a participle couldn't be used like that normally.)
Falulukanìl ahol sterä'nì sawtutet a rerey slä lu fwel/tìsraw.

But there is a difference between "rerey" and "lu rusey". "Rerey" is a verb with the imperfective infix, meaning "living (being alive)" and "lu rusey" is a participle, meaning "living (as "a living thing")", so the difference is either there, or i'm too tired to see your point

And that tìsraw shouldn't be there as it's a noun meaning pain.

Falulukan sawtutefa afwel lu tìtusaron a uvan si.

Shouldn't it rather be: "Falulukan sawtutefa afwel uvan si a lu tìtusaron."?

Falulukan sawtutefa afwel tìtusaronä uvan si.

And here i'm completely lost... "palulukans with/by the means of broken sky-people hunting's play"?
Why tìtusaron in the genitive?

The gerund of a si verb is just the noun part, there is no *tìsusi or *tìuvan-susi.

Is that a rule? I think that "game" and "playing" are two different things, so maybe *uvan tìsusi, should be correct.
Although just uvan is ok, but for me it seems a bit out of place, because it's not really the game that's being finished, but the act of playing.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Very interesting discourse here. What I am beginning to sense from all of this is there may not be one exactly correct way of saying what I am trying to say here. So, what I am going to try and do here is collect what seem to be the most well-reasoned texts for each line (and Omägum Frauti seems to have the most of these) and see what we have.

Pelun falulukan mowana sawtute
(ulte pelun sawtute txopu si falulukanur)

Sawtute falulukanur lu ftxìlora syuve.
Ftue lu fwa fkol stä'nì sì yom sawtutet.
Sawtuteri hewne lu vey sì tärem.
Falulukanìl ahol sterä'nì sawtutet a rerey slä lu fwel.
Ayfol munge ne'ìm kelku fwela sawtutet.
Falulukan a`eveng sawtutefa afwel uvan si a lu tìtusaron.
Ayfol yom fwela sawtutet maw krr a fìuvan lu hasey.

Most of this needs no comments. The last two lies though, I had to think about a lot.

On the second-to-last line, somewhere along the line, the 'eveng had been dropped. I added it back in. (Adult thanators AFAIK wouldn't bother with a game. They would kill the skyperson instantly, and quickly devour this relatively small meal.) The uvan si a lu tìtusaron basically says (to me, anyway), playing game of hunting.

On the last line, I thought about the comments that Hawnuyu Atxen made concerning the 'act of playing over' vs 'game over' were very interesting. And indeed, when the skyperson has stopped being 'active prey', it is time to stop playing and begin eating. However, I think that, in the context of the paragraph, and most people's general understanding of predators, is is acceptable here to be slightly idiomatic and say 'game over'. Your thoughts are welcome on this.

In any case, irayo nìtxan for commenting on this. I think I am going to write some more paragraphs like this one, as the discourse that resulted was very instructive. (And I was pleased to see new understanding from the Workshop being applied here.) And hopefully, not just for me, but for others that may read this thread.

[omängum fra'uti]

Ftue lu sawtutet stä'nì sì yom

So in the end the only problem here was that it's not seen as "ftue lu (sawtutet stä'nì sì yom)" without the fwa?

Srane

Here, rusey is a problem.  You can't use participles predicatively like that.  Trying to do so is trying to translate the English too literally.  What would the difference be between "*lu rusey" and "rerey"?  None.  So just say "rerey".  Now rusey is a special participle in that it can be used outside the context of a participle, but I believe that would mean something more like "a living thing" as a noun.  (I could be wrong here and it could indeed be used that way, I don't recall the exact discussion about rusey, but speaking in general, a participle couldn't be used like that normally.)
Falulukanìl ahol sterä'nì sawtutet a rerey slä lu fwel/tìsraw.

But there is a difference between "rerey" and "lu rusey". "Rerey" is a verb with the imperfective infix, meaning "living (being alive)" and "lu rusey" is a participle, meaning "living (as "a living thing")", so the difference is either there, or i'm too tired to see your point

Oe rerey
I am living
*Oe lu rusey
I am living

Aside from the fact that the second one isn't allowed by Na'vi grammar, they are identical in meaning when translated to English.  The reason is that the first, rerey is translated to English as the present progressive form of the verb.  While lu + participle is doing a literal word for word translation of the way English renders present progressive.  So that is applying English grammar rules to Na'vi.  You CAN use rusey to mean a living thing, but that's an odd case because it is a noun, no longer the participle form (And not a gerund either).  The case of rusey is a bit exceptional in that manner.

Falulukan sawtutefa afwel lu tìtusaron a uvan si.

Shouldn't it rather be: "Falulukan sawtutefa afwel uvan si a lu tìtusaron."?

The attributive "a" needs a noun to attribute to.  You just put it between two verbs, which is basically nonsensical in Na'vi.  The reason I put it before uvan is because given that si is not supposed to be split from it's helper word, I wasn't sure if you could put it after, so I put it before.  My sentence is perfectly grammatically acceptable though.

Thanators play a game that is hunting using sky people.

Falulukan sawtutefa afwel tìtusaronä uvan si.

And here i'm completely lost... "palulukans with/by the means of broken sky-people hunting's play"?
Why tìtusaron in the genitive?

Thanators play a game of hunting using sky people.

Again, putting the modifier to uvan before it since I'm not sure it is allowed to split it with si, even with modifiers.

The gerund of a si verb is just the noun part, there is no *tìsusi or *tìuvan-susi.

Is that a rule? I think that "game" and "playing" are two different things, so maybe *uvan tìsusi, should be correct.
Although just uvan is ok, but for me it seems a bit out of place, because it's not really the game that's being finished, but the act of playing.

What's the difference between the game being finished, and playing the game being finished?  If the game is finished, you stop playing.  If you've stopped playing, the game is finished.  And yes, that is a rule, there are no gerund forms of si verbs, you just use the base word that si is used with where you would use the gerund.

Something that may be confusing with uvan si is that it doesn't just mean "playing", it means "playing a game".

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Omägum, we must have replied nearly on top of each other, and for some reason, it was not flagged.
I read your comments and made changes to the second-to-last line. Like many here, I am still trying to think in Na`vi, so many things are too literally translated from English.

Pelun falulukan mowana sawtute
(ulte pelun sawtute txopu si falulukanur)

Sawtute falulukanur lu ftxìlora syuve.
Ftue lu fwa fkol stä'nì sì yom sawtutet.
Sawtuteri hewne lu vey sì tärem.
Falulukanìl ahol sterä'nì sawtutet a rerey slä lu fwel.
Ayfol munge ne'ìm kelku fwela sawtutet.
Falulukan a`eveng sawtutefa afwel  lu tìtusaron a uvan si.
Ayfol yom fwela sawtutet maw krr a fìuvan lu hasey.

I liked your first form with the a better than the second form.

[omängum fra'uti]

It can be really difficult to get your mind into how something sounds in a language that is not your own, especially when all you know is your own.  Believe me, it has taken me MANY virtual smacks from wm.annis to get that through my head.  I'm honestly not sure which of "lu tìtusaron a uvan" or "tìtusaronä uvan" would be more Na'vi, or if both would be wrong and there would be some other way to say it, maybe with an adposition or something.

It didn't flag it for you because you posted first.  It did for me, but I figured my comments were still valid, and you'd be able to pick out of there what you needed, which you did.

[Hawnuyu atxen]

Falulukan sawtutefa afwel lu tìtusaron a uvan si.

Shouldn't it rather be: "Falulukan sawtutefa afwel uvan si a lu tìtusaron."?

The attributive "a" needs a noun to attribute to.  You just put it between two verbs, which is basically nonsensical in Na'vi.  The reason I put it before uvan is because given that si is not supposed to be split from it's helper word, I wasn't sure if you could put it after, so I put it before.  My sentence is perfectly grammatically acceptable though.

Thanators play a game that is hunting using sky people.

Ok, here my problem was that i thought too much about the attributive "a" separating the two parts of the sentence (subordinate clause), and because of that it would need a word order like that... i think i've been learning english too much and because of that i'm thinking that "(...) uvan si a tìtusaron lu" would sound better.
At least now i know that it really is like the adjective-marker "a", just it's a word on it's own (so it needs to be next to the noun it modifies by the sub. clause)

Falulukan sawtutefa afwel tìtusaronä uvan si.

And here i'm completely lost... "palulukans with/by the means of broken sky-people hunting's play"?
Why tìtusaron in the genitive?

Thanators play a game of hunting using sky people.


Something that may be confusing with uvan si is that it doesn't just mean "playing", it means "playing a game".

Than here is my problem:
I always thought that uvan si means play a game as "play (a game)", with the "a game" part not being the part of the meaning, just shows that uvan si is meant for games.
That was my problem in the other sentence you gave too than.


And about the participles... i really didn't know that the active isn't allowed too, like the passive.

You CAN use rusey to mean a living thing, but that's an odd case because it is a noun, no longer the participle form (And not a gerund either).  The case of rusey is a bit exceptional in that manner.

This is something i still don't get thought. With the <us>, it should be a participle, meaning that it would "behave" like an adjective.
Like in the dictionary: rey - (to) live
tìrusey - living (gerund, like a noun)
rusey - living (participle, like an adjective)

So why would rusey "no longer be a participle"?

[Carborundum]

(...) lu tìtusaron a uvan si.

(...) uvan si a tìtusaron lu.

The meanings of these sentences aren't the same. OF attributes lu tìtusaron to uvan, and gets "thanators using broken skypeople plays a game which is hunting".
You are attributing uvan si to tìtusaron, which gives us "thanators using broken skypeople are hunting which plays". Whatever that means.

This is something i still don't get thought. With the <us>, it should be a participle, meaning that it would "behave" like an adjective.
Like in the dictionary: rey - (to) live
tìrusey - living (gerund, like a noun)
rusey - living (participle, like an adjective)

So why would rusey "no longer be a participle"?

It's an exception. Languages do that sometimes. It's annoying, but all you can do is roll with it.

[omängum fra'uti]

The non participle form of "rusey" is a noun which means something like "the living".  It is, as Carborundum noted, an exception that just needs to be learned.