Confusion about <eyk>

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

In another thread, Kemaweyan made the following statement:

    Only transitive verbs with -eyk- Smiley Intransitive verbs with -eyk- get -ti:

    Pol oeti steyki.

In response to Eltu Lefngap Makto's asking about:

   Also, <eyk> verbs could end up with dative/fura's of inanimate things

From what I understand about <eyk>, it makes an intransitive verb transitive, and a transitive verb ditransitive. So, with an intransitive verb with <eyk> you would also have to have a patient . With a transitive verb and <eyk>, you would have a patient AND an indirect object in the dative (agent is assumed in both cases). Is there anything else I am missing?

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

I didn't know that <eyk> "de-transitizes" a transitive verb....that's interesting. And if that were the case then using agentive/patientive would be incorrect because those are never used with intransitive verbs. Or...am I missing something here? I'm very tired right now so that's quite possible lol.

-Txonä Rolyu

[Ikran Ahiyìk]

From what I understand about <eyk>, it makes an intransitive verb transitive, and a transitive verb ditransitive. So, with an intransitive verb with <eyk> you would also have to have a patient . With a transitive verb and <eyk>, you would have a patient AND an indirect object in the dative (agent is assumed in both cases). Is there anything else I am missing?

"This part" <-- is optional

Antipassive causatives
We know that when a normally transitive verb is used in an antipassive manner (po taron vs. pol yerikit taron) the subject does not get any case markings, as if it were an intransitive verb.  What happens, then, if you are using the causative form?  A transitive verb and intransitive verb take the causative slightly differently, after all.  But the verb is still transitive, so it is treated like a transitive verb.  The person causing them to do something is still the agentive case, and the person being caused to do it is still the dative case.  No patientive case is used.

oel poru teykaron
I made him hunt

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

OH! Ok, I think I got it now. But if your sentence is specific like oel poru teykaron yerikit then you'd still need the patientive on the thing being hunted because you're using a transitive verb.

-Txonä Rolyu

[Ikran Ahiyìk]

OH! Ok, I think I got it now. But if your sentence is specific like oel poru teykaron yerikit then you'd still need the patientive on the thing being hunted because you're using a transitive verb.

-Txonä Rolyu

Yes, so why I said it's optional..

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I didn't know that <eyk> "de-transitizes" a transitive verb....that's interesting. And if that were the case then using agentive/patientive would be incorrect because those are never used with intransitive verbs. Or...am I missing something here? I'm very tired right now so that's quite possible lol.

-Txonä Rolyu

Ma Txona, You misunderstood. You confused 'de-transitive' with 'ditransitive'. A ditransitive verb requires a subject, a direct object and an indirect object. Example: Rerol Txewil yayayrit kxutur

What Omangum is discussing in his post is a apecial case-- the use of the causitive in an antipassive sentence. If the intent is to use the sentence in a non-antipassive manner, then I think what I was describing applies. If you are trying to use a verb antipassively, then it would make sense that the person/thing being acted upon would be in the dative case. That said, I am still not sure about this.

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

I didn't know that <eyk> "de-transitizes" a transitive verb....that's interesting. And if that were the case then using agentive/patientive would be incorrect because those are never used with intransitive verbs. Or...am I missing something here? I'm very tired right now so that's quite possible lol.

-Txonä Rolyu

Ma Txona, You misunderstood. You confused 'de-transitive' with 'ditransitive'. A ditransitive verb requires a subject, a direct object and an indirect object. Example: Rerol Txewil yayayrit kxutur

What Omangum is discussing in his post is a apecial case-- the use of the causitive in an antipassive sentence. If the intent is to use the sentence in a non-antipassive manner, then I think what I was describing applies. If you are trying to use a verb antipassively, then it would make sense that the person/thing being acted upon would be in the dative case. That said, I am still not sure about this.

Wowww....I shouldn't try to comprehend Na'vi when I'm as tired as I was last night lol. Oeyä tìkawng!

But now that I'm awake, that sentence doesn't look right to me...I don't see a verb with <eyk> in it and here I think you want the gerund form of singing, Txewì should be in the genetive, tìrusol would get the agentive case, and I would use sleyku here.

So the finished sentence would look something like: Tìrusolìl Txewìyä yayayrit sleyku kxutur. The only thing I'm not 100% sure about is if I put the pat./gen. cases in the correct places. It makes sense to me to have them the way they are in that sentence because in my  mind I'm interpreting it as "the singing of Txewì caused (to) the enemy to become confused." But if I am wrong, please correct me.

-Txonä Rolyu

Note: I don't know what "antipassive" means. I may be pretty good with Na'vi, but I'm still a n00b with linguistics.

[wm.annis]

But now that I'm awake, that sentence doesn't look right to me...I don't see a verb with <eyk> in it and here I think you want the gerund form of singing, Txewì should be in the genetive, tìrusol would get the agentive case, and I would use sleyku here.

No, no, no.  

A Na'vi gerund cannot take noun arguments.  That is, it cannot have a subject or an object, unlike English (and some other Indo-European languages) which lets you use a genitive, "Txewì's singing is annoying."

If you want to attach a subject, object or direct object to a gerund idea, in Na'vi you must attach the entire clause with a normal verb to fì'u.

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

But now that I'm awake, that sentence doesn't look right to me...I don't see a verb with <eyk> in it and here I think you want the gerund form of singing, Txewì should be in the genetive, tìrusol would get the agentive case, and I would use sleyku here.

No, no, no.  

A Na'vi gerund cannot take noun arguments.  That is, it cannot have a subject or an object, unlike English (and some other Indo-European languages) which lets you use a genitive, "Txewì's singing is annoying."

If you want to attach a subject, object or direct object to a gerund idea, in Na'vi you must attach the entire clause with a normal verb to fì'u.

Hmm, I'm not quite understanding my mistake nor what you mean by "you must attach the entire clause with a normal verb to fì'u". I was using tìrusol as the subject of the sentence, is that what I did wrong? Can you demonstrate the correct way to write the sentence? (While I go look at that thread lol)

-Txonä Rolyu

Edit: So I just read the thread and based on what I saw, would Fwa Txewì rol yayarit sleyku kxutur be correct?

[Carborundum]

Hmm, I'm not quite understanding my mistake nor what you mean by "you must attach the entire clause with a normal verb to fì'u". I was using tìrusol as the subject of the sentence, is that what I did wrong? Can you demonstrate the correct way to write the sentence? (While I go look at that thread lol)

-Txonä Rolyu

Edit: So I just read the thread and based on what I saw, would Fwa Txewì rol yayarit sleyku kxutur be correct?

No, I don't think so. First of all you'd need to use fula instead of fwa, because Txewì's singing is what is causing the confusion. However, as slu is intransitive, its causative cannot take an indirect object like this.

Sleyku can take an adjective predicate, so if we had the adjective confused, we could say fula Txewì rol kxutut sleyku [confused]. Right now I can't think of a good way to solve this using only the noun yayayr.

Edit: based on Dr. Frommer's example usage:

Sawtuteyä hemìri lu awngaru yayayr.
The Skypeople's actions confuse us.

We should be able to say furia Txewì rol lu kxutur yayayr.

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

Hmm, I'm not quite understanding my mistake nor what you mean by "you must attach the entire clause with a normal verb to fì'u". I was using tìrusol as the subject of the sentence, is that what I did wrong? Can you demonstrate the correct way to write the sentence? (While I go look at that thread lol)

-Txonä Rolyu

Edit: So I just read the thread and based on what I saw, would Fwa Txewì rol yayarit sleyku kxutur be correct?

No, I don't think so. First of all you'd need to use fula instead of fwa, because Txewì's singing is what is causing the confusion. However, as slu is intransitive, its causative cannot take an indirect object like this.

Sleyku can take an adjective predicate, so if we had the adjective confused, we could say fula Txewì rol kxutut sleyku [confused]. Right now I can't think of a good way to solve this using only the noun yayayr.


Edit: based on Dr. Frommer's example usage:

Sawtuteyä hemìri lu awngaru yayayr.
The Skypeople's actions confuse us.

We should be able to say furia Txewì rol lu kxutur yayayr.

Oh duh! I meant to type fula. But I don't understand this part:

its causative cannot take an indirect object like this. Sleyku can take an adjective predicate,

(I wasn't kidding when I said I am a linguistics n00b.)

-Txonä Rolyu

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Edit: So I just read the thread and based on what I saw, would Fwa Txewì rol yayarit sleyku kxutur be correct?

No, I don't think so. First of all you'd need to use fula instead of fwa, because Txewì's singing is what is causing the confusion. However, as slu is intransitive, its causative cannot take an indirect object like this.

What Carborundum is saying here is an example of what I was talking about in the normal (not antipassive) use of a verb containing <eyk>. Inflecting the very with <eyk> makes an intransitive verb transitive. So in normal usage, it would get a direct object (-it case marker). But you could not add an indirect object (-ru, -ur case marker) to this as well. In your example, you only have indirect objects, which would be OK for a normal intransitive verb.

You could have both a direct and an indirect object (and the indirect object may be optional) if the verb receiving the <eyk> is transitive to begin with.

Please set me straight if I am wrong.

Sleyku can take an adjective predicate, so if we had the adjective confused, we could say fula Txewì rol kxutut sleyku [confused]. Right now I can't think of a good way to solve this using only the noun yayayr.

Edit: based on Dr. Frommer's example usage:

Sawtuteyä hemìri lu awngaru yayayr.
The Skypeople's actions confuse us.

We should be able to say furia Txewì rol lu kxutur yayayr.

I think I like this. The topical seems to help clarify this example.

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

Edit: So I just read the thread and based on what I saw, would Fwa Txewì rol yayarit sleyku kxutur be correct?

No, I don't think so. First of all you'd need to use fula instead of fwa, because Txewì's singing is what is causing the confusion. However, as slu is intransitive, its causative cannot take an indirect object like this.

What Carborundum is saying here is an example of what I was talking about in the normal (not antipassive) use of a verb containing <eyk>. Inflecting the very with <eyk> makes an intransitive verb transitive. So in normal usage, it would get a direct object (-it case marker). But you could not add an indirect object (-ru, -ur case marker) to this as well. In your example, you only have indirect objects, which would be OK for a normal intransitive verb.

You could have both a direct and an indirect object (and the indirect object may be optional) if the verb receiving the <eyk> is transitive to begin with.

Please set me straight if I am wrong.

I am still not understanding, I still don't know what antipassive means.
With a verb that's transitive to begin with I thought the direct object was the optional one.

Sleyku can take an adjective predicate, so if we had the adjective confused, we could say fula Txewì rol kxutut sleyku [confused]. Right now I can't think of a good way to solve this using only the noun yayayr.

Edit: based on Dr. Frommer's example usage:

Sawtuteyä hemìri lu awngaru yayayr.
The Skypeople's actions confuse us.

We should be able to say furia Txewì rol lu kxutur yayayr.

I think I like this. The topical seems to help clarify this example.

Well yes, that makes sense, but aren't we trying to figure out usage of the topical?

-Txonä Rolyu

[wm.annis]

I am still not understanding, I still don't know what antipassive means.

The antipassive is a grammatical construction that occurs fairly often in languages that are ergative or tripartite (Na'vi is the latter).

As you know, in Na'vi, the subject of a transitive verb is marked differently than the subject of an intransitive verb:

 Oel poti tse'a I see him.
 Oe hahaw I sleep.

The antipassive is used when a transitive verb is stated with no overt or implied object.  Note the small dialog below:

 A: Ngal tse'a nantangit srak? Do you see the viperwolf?
 B: Oel tse'a.  I see (it).

Here, even though there's not an overt direct object in B's reply, the normal transitivity marking (the agentive on the subject) still needs to be used.  The direct object is in the conversation, in the context.  Even though not mentioned, it still has an effect on grammar.  (Most people don't realize just how much of what we say day-day-day, moment-to-moment, makes no sense when removed from context.)

The antipassive is when you use intransitive syntax with a transitive verb.  This is done when not only is no direct object stated or implied, but is suppressed entirely.  A good example:

 Fo teraron They are hunting.

In this example, the hunting is a general activity — no particular prey is being specified or implied in the conversation.

The Confusion: Karyu Pawl has stated that there is something like an antipassive construction in Na'vi.  The teraron example above is based on his own example.  Unfortunately, his own practice is not entirely consistent, and some people on LN.org are quite attached to the idea that you only use the agentive when there's an overt direct object.  He needs to either (1) abolish the antipassive or (2) make a few tweaks to how he himself uses transitive verbs.  I'm hoping for (2), which is more likely typologically.

I have a longish and rather technical question out to him about several transitivity issues in Na'vi.  I know he's still thinking about the questions, and I hopeful we'll get some clear statements in the not-too-distant future.