Attributive a with adpositions

Started by `Eylan Ayfalulukanä, August 28, 2013, 09:05:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

One thing that has always mystified me is why in some cases an attributive a is needed between a sentence and a preposition. Something I saw yeaterday in another post, I think finally explained it in a way I can easily remember. And I hope this will help others as well. Lets see if I 'caught it right'.

If the adposition is 'attached' to a verb, it stands as-is. Example: Txewi slerele mì kilvan.

If the adposition is 'attached' to a noun, an attributive a is needed. Example: Ninal yamom yerikit a mì kelku poä

Is this correct? Is there more?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tìtstewan

#1
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on August 28, 2013, 09:05:48 PM
Example: Txewi slerele mì hilvan.
Txewi swimming in the river.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on August 28, 2013, 09:05:48 PM
Example: Ninal yamom yerikit a mì helku poäeyä.
Ninal ate the yerik, which is in her house.

Edit:
This sentence has a independent clause and a subordinate clause.
Ninal ate the yerik [Ninal yamom yerikit] is the independent clause
in her house [mì helku peyä] is the subordinate clause
You will see here is need the subordinate clause marker a.
--> Ninal yamom yerikit a mì helku peyä.

Txewi slerele mì hilvan
Txewi swimming in the river.

This sentence hasn't a subordinate clause, hence no a.

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Tirea Aean

#2
YES! :D :D

Pretty much exactly this, to be simple:

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on August 28, 2013, 09:05:48 PM
If the adposition is 'attached' to a verb, it stands as-is. Example: Txewi slerele mì hilvan.

If the adposition is 'attached' to a noun, an attributive a is needed. Example: Ninal yamom yerikit a mì helku peyä

Really, the entire purpose of a, is to connect a noun to a description of it. Sometimes that description is a prepositional phrase.

So I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head this time, ma 'eylan :)

PS, remember mì causes lenition :)

And of course, Tìtstewan's explanation is also correct (on a more technical level)

Plumps

But there is an interesting difference in meaning. You could leave out the a in the second sentence and arrive at

Ninal yamom yerikit mì helku peyä
"Nina ate a yerik in (another one's) house"

The a only specifies that the yerik is/was in the home. But yeah, your rules of thumb are quite right. :)

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Plumps on August 29, 2013, 01:33:39 AM
But there is an interesting difference in meaning. You could leave out the a in the second sentence and arrive at

Ninal yamom yerikit mì helku peyä
"Nina ate a yerik in (another one's) house"

The a only specifies that the yerik is/was in the home. But yeah, your rules of thumb are quite right. :)


OH! Right. I didn't even consider this! But indeed this is true.

Using the a in this example would be the difference between

In his house, Nina ate a yerik. (without the a.)
Nina ate a yerik which was in his house (with the a.)

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Irayo for the comments. (How did I miss that lenition?? or the eyä? :(  )

What I was trying to say here was that Nina (a female) was eating some yerik (not the whole thing) while in her house, not Nina was eating a yerik that was in his house. So somehow, I failed to convey the exact meaning I intended. Perhaps I needed Yerikit yamom nìʼit Ninal a mì helku poeyä

I sometimes wonder if I am ever going to really learn this language ;)

Irayo nìmun!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tirea Aean

#6
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on August 29, 2013, 03:59:04 AM
Irayo for the comments. (How did I miss that lenition?? or the eyä? :(  )

:D

And I don't know. Most people forget lenition from time to time. ;)

QuoteWhat I was trying to say here was that Nina (a female) was eating some yerik (not the whole thing) while in her house, not Nina was eating a yerik that was in his house. So somehow, I failed to convey the exact meaning I intended. Perhaps I needed Yerikit yamom nìʼit Ninal a mì helku poeyä

SO close. :D

What you want in this case then is Yerikit yamom nì'it Ninal mì helku sneyä. ;)

QuoteI sometimes wonder if I am ever going to really learn this language ;)

Irayo nìmun!

I know you're a busy guy with a life and many things going on in your mind. :) It's no big deal. I know that you can and will learn. You've been around for a while, like me. And it takes a special kind of determination and passion to stay in this for this long. And to be honest, more people would learn more, and quicker and easier, if a truly immersive environment existed.

Nìprrte' :)

EDIT: beware the edits. ;D

Tìtstewan

Quote from: Tirea Aean on August 28, 2013, 10:42:23 PM
PS, remember mì causes lenition :)

And of course, Tìtstewan's explanation is also correct (on a more technical level)
Well, I was mixed ub with mi and ...

Hehe, I'm indeed often like a technician.

Quote from: Tirea Aean on August 29, 2013, 04:05:04 AM
EDIT: beware the edits. ;D
Fì'u. :P

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Blue Elf

Quote from: Plumps on August 29, 2013, 01:33:39 AM
But there is an interesting difference in meaning. You could leave out the a in the second sentence and arrive at

Ninal yamom yerikit mì helku peyä
"Nina ate a yerik in (another one's) house"

The a only specifies that the yerik is/was in the home. But yeah, your rules of thumb are quite right. :)

This. What's the difference:
Ninal yamom yerikit mì helku sneyä. -> Nina ate yerik in her house.
Here blue part is adverb (of place). Where he ate the yerik? In his house.

Ninal yamom yerikit a mì helku sneyä -> Nina ate yerik which is in her house.
Here blue part is subordinate clause. Honestly, I have sometimes hard time to decide whether to use a or not too. But I agree - key is to decide, if phrase modifies verb (then it is adverb) or noun (then it is subclause).
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

I had thought about using both pumä and sneyä in that sentence, but thought that might not be a better choice than peyä. I can see where you can get 'another' out of that, so in the end, sneyä conveys the meaning better.

To me and my twisted English background, Ninal yamom yerikit mì helku sneyä makes sense as 'Nina ate yerik in her house', and on first reading would mean pretty much the same as Yerikit yamom Ninal mì helku sneyä.

But if you then stick a in there and assume a creates a subordinate clause, let's see what happens: Yerikit yamom Ninal a mì helku sneyä If it is assumed that the subordinate clause would result in a translation like Nina, who was in her house, ate some yerik.

So perhaps the conclusion that can be reached here is, if the adposition affects the entire main sentence, no [a] is needed. But if the adposition applies specifically as an adjective to one of the nouns, the a is needed, and the word order has to be such that it is 'connected' to the right noun. This also is something that can be remembered and taught.

On a completely different subject, we are having a Rib Festival this weekend here in Reno, and it is expected that some 220,000 pounds of (mostly) tsngan will be consumed here in the next five days. I will there, in full palulukan mode!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tirea Aean

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on August 29, 2013, 04:27:17 PM
I had thought about using both pumä and sneyä in that sentence, but thought that might not be a better choice than peyä. I can see where you can get 'another' out of that, so in the end, sneyä conveys the meaning better.

To me and my twisted English background, Ninal yamom yerikit mì helku sneyä makes sense as 'Nina ate yerik in her house', and on first reading would mean pretty much the same as Yerikit yamom Ninal mì helku sneyä.

But if you then stick a in there and assume a creates a subordinate clause, let's see what happens: Yerikit yamom Ninal a mì helku sneyä If it is assumed that the subordinate clause would result in a translation like Nina, who was in her house, ate some yerik.

So perhaps the conclusion that can be reached here is, if the adposition affects the entire main sentence, no [a] is needed. But if the adposition applies specifically as an adjective to one of the nouns, the a is needed, and the word order has to be such that it is 'connected' to the right noun. This also is something that can be remembered and taught.

On a completely different subject, we are having a Rib Festival this weekend here in Reno, and it is expected that some 220,000 pounds of (mostly) tsngan will be consumed here in the next five days. I will there, in full palulukan mode!

Yes yes yes yes yes srane this is gold! :D

pumä, though.. I don't know. I think I should make a helpful post somewhere about pum or something. :)

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Tirea Aean on August 29, 2013, 08:47:28 PM

Yes yes yes yes yes srane this is gold! :D

pumä, though.. I don't know. I think I should make a helpful post somewhere about pum or something. :)

Very good then, progress is being made!

This post was made mere seconds before the server crash, and I am surprised to see it is here!

We have a pumä living next door, and boy can she purr! ;)

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tirea Aean