Coordination of non-subject noun arguments

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Let's take the following sentence:

Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi. (1)

Clearly, we are talking about two people here. One is a human, the other is a Na'vi. We can then transform it into the following sentence:

Menga lu tawtute ulte menga lu Na'vi (2)

The sentence changes to mean that both are both Na'vi and human; perhaps we are talking about two Avatars here.

My first question is, can we change the bottom sentence to Menga lu tawtute ulte Na'vi (3)? It seems like a logical abbreviation for talking about these kinds of things.

My second question concerns sentences of the following type.

Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi (4)

Conventionally we would translate it as "You are a human and a Na'vi", which English is interpreted as "You are human, but you are also a Na'vi". However, this seems to contradict the menga sentence. Let's revisit it:

Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi. = "You-2 are a mixture of humans and Na'vis"

We should be able to replace the subject with anything here:

Aysute lu sawtute sì ayNa'vi = "The people is a mixture of humans and Na'vis"

**Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi = "You are a mixture of humans and Na'vis"

The last sentence goes against our intuitive English understanding of "You are a human and a Na'vi". Yet even in English, we could theoretically parse "you are a human and a Na'vi" as "you are a 'human-'n'-Na'vi'" which means something different, and probably, uh, really gross.

More generally:

A lu B sì C sì D...

seems to not be universally equivalent to

A lu B ulte A lu C ulte ...

due to the menga example sentence at the top. So can we parse nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi as nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi simply based on some ill-defined property hidden in the exact semantics of nga? Since if this rule works for subjects in general (1) and (2) would be equivalent, and they clearly are not.

Finally, if sentences like (3) are correct, then we can simply say A lu B ulte C ulte D... instead of struggling with the semantics of sì. Is that grammatical?

Spoiler: Set-theory overanalysis...

In set theory "A lu B sì C sì D..." seems to mean either "A ∈ {B,C,D...}" if A is singular, or "A = {B,C,D...}" if A is plural.

Instead "A lu B ulte A lu C ..." directly translates into either "A ∈ B ⋀ A ∈ C ⋀ A ∈ D..." or  "A = B ⋀ A = C ⋀ A = D...".

In general these two are not equivalent; however for small sets they often are coincidentially equivalent.

[Blue Elf]

Let's take the following sentence:

Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi. (1)

Clearly, we are talking about two people here. One is a human, the other is a Na'vi. We can then transform it into the following sentence:

Let's say yes, although to be 100% sure, I'd use: Nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi.

Menga lu tawtute ulte menga lu Na'vi (2)

The sentence changes to mean that both are both Na'vi and human; perhaps we are talking about two Avatars here.

Hmmmm, I understand this as you speak about two pairs - one pair are humans, second one are Na'vi. You must use something different, like You two are both human and Na'vi, but I'm afraid we do not have good words for this yet. Maybe
Menga lu tawsute sì Na'vi 'awsiteng

My first question is, can we change the bottom sentence to Menga lu tawtute ulte Na'vi (3)? It seems like a logical abbreviation for talking about these kinds of things.

No, this sentence has no sense. Ulte is used to connect two sentences, But second one is just word Na'vi, what is wrong.

My second question concerns sentences of the following type.

Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi (4)

Conventionally we would translate it as "You are a human and a Na'vi", which English is interpreted as "You are human, but you are also a Na'vi". However, this seems to contradict the menga sentence. Let's revisit it:

Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi. = "You-2 are a mixture of humans and Na'vis"

IMHO we still need here to add equivalent of english "both" (You two are both human and Na'vi)

We should be able to replace the subject with anything here:

Aysute lu sawtute sì ayNa'vi = "The people is a mixture of humans and Na'vis"

**Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi = "You are a mixture of humans and Na'vis"

The last sentence goes against our intuitive English understanding of "You are a human and a Na'vi". Yet even in English, we could theoretically parse "you are a human and a Na'vi" as "you are a 'human-'n'-Na'vi'" which means something different, and probably, uh, really gross.

More generally:

A lu B sì C sì D...

seems to not be universally equivalent to

A lu B ulte A lu C ulte ...

due to the menga example sentence at the top. So can we parse nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi as nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi simply based on some ill-defined property hidden in the exact semantics of nga? Since if this rule works for subjects in general (1) and (2) would be equivalent, and they clearly are not.

I would not try to apply math rules to language; it doesn't work too often

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Hmm. 'awsiteng does seem to solve the problem well without introducing new semantics to sì as being the "distributed ulte".

So I cannot abbreviate like oe lu skxawng ulte lu Na'vi => oe lu skxawng ulte (lu) Na'vi? There is still an "invisible" lu there; the second argument is not Na'vi but an embedded clause lu Na'vi.

I guess the question boils down to whether we could omit verbs in verbal phrases. Maybe not; in that case it would be ungrammatical to omit lu above; however we do know that we can freely omit just about anything else (subjects, objects, etc).

[Tìtstewan]

Let's take the following sentence:

Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi. (1)

Clearly, we are talking about two people here. One is a human, the other is a Na'vi. We can then transform it into the following sentence:

Menga lu tawtute ulte menga lu Na'vi (2)

The sentence changes to mean that both are both Na'vi and human; perhaps we are talking about two Avatars here.

My first question is, can we change the bottom sentence to Menga lu tawtute ulte Na'vi (3)? It seems like a logical abbreviation for talking about these kinds of things.

As BE said, ulte connetcs two sentences. I would also use Nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi
BUT:
From Na'viteri:
Ayngari tengkrr ya wur sleru nì’ul, sìlpey oe, livu helku sang ulte te’lan lefpom.
I've observed that if there is missing a verb in the ulte-part, it should be always lu.
The only problem here is, in that example is missing menga, and to write Menga lu tawtute ulte menga Na'vi has a different meaning.

As for the use of sì: I would not use it for this example you have used, because sì makes "lists" and I would translate a sentence like this one "Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi" as "You both are a human and Na'vi", but with the meaning of "You both are a half human and a half Na'vi."

The use of sì works perfectly for stuff like this:
Menga lu tawtute sì hì'i sì lehrrap.
You both are humans, small and dangerous.

Finally, if sentences like (3) are correct, then we can simply say A lu B ulte C ulte D... instead of struggling with the semantics of sì. Is that grammatical?

Spoiler: Set-theory overanalysis...

In set theory "A lu B sì C sì D..." seems to mean either "A ∈ {B,C,D...}" if A is singular, or "A = {B,C,D...}" if A is plural.

Instead "A lu B ulte A lu C ..." directly translates into either "A ∈ B ⋀ A ∈ C ⋀ A ∈ D..." or  "A = B ⋀ A = C ⋀ A = D...".

In general these two are not equivalent; however for small sets they often are coincidentially equivalent.

I think, that kind of math doen't work here.


EDIT:

I thought about it. If Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi isn't that correct, then this following esample would be 'wrong', which isn't I believe.
Menga lu tsmukan sì tsmuke.

If one ask:
Tsaysamsiyu lu supe?
One would anwer:
Fo lu Kamun, Ralu, Ìstaw, sì Ateyo.

Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi.
Should mean:
They two are a skypeople and a Na'vi.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

My question was more:

Does nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi mean nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi, or something bizarre?

[Tìtstewan]

My question was more: Does nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi mean nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi, or something bizarre?

No.
nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi = You are a skypeople and a Na'vi -> "mixture"
nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi = You are a tawtute and you are a Na'vi. (It has also the meaning as one would sa to nga (1) you are a skypople and another nga (2) are a Na'vi)
The meaning is different.


(set herahaw oe)

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

So if I want to say "I am a Chinese person AND (I am) a Canadian person", can I say Oe lu ta Tsayna sì Kanada? That seems very wrong, as if "China and Canada" were the name of one country.

Is Oe lu ta Tsayna ulte (lu) ta Kanada correct without adding the lu?

[Wllìm]

+1 for the question

Ačankif, did you by any chance study Lojban? If not, it is a constructed language which is meant to have no (syntactic) ambiguity. They ran into exactly the same problem you describe, and since the language needed to be non-ambiguous, they have created a distinction between so-called individuals, masses and sets. If you are interested in a very technical but interesting read about how many ways there are to interpret something like "the persons", you can read section 6.3 from Lojban's grammar description.

As for Na'vi: I think that this ambiguity that is part of natural languages. Why does Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi not mean "You are a tawtute-and-Na'vi-at-the-same-time"? Well, because that meaning makes no sense Over time, natural languages tend to evolve to remove confusing sentences with more than one meaning, so in general, although natural languages are horrible to describe logically, a normal person can usually find out what a sentence means without even thinking about it.

I studied mathematics, so my first reflex was to try to describe what I mean in terms of set theory, but I failed until now I have some more ideas, if it works out, I'll post them here.

[Tìtstewan]

If the sentence would be like Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi, it would be totally ok.
In poems, the sentence "Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi" is ok. But usually, I would not write that as I ask me how one can be a (physical) tawtute and a (physical) Na'vi as one?

Regarding Oe lu ta Tsayna sì Kanata, I think, this sentence is ok as ta shows that you are from China and Canada. Also, you can be "half Canadian and half Chinese" if one interprate it in this way and bot are humans.
To make it totally clear that you are from the both country, I would write:

Oe lu ta Tsayna sì kop (ta) Kanata.
'I'm from China and also from Canada'

As for me, I could write:
Oe lu ta Europa sì Toitslan sì kop Romania.
I'm from Europe, Germany and also from Romania.

I'm not 100% sure if one can omit the second ta, but, I think, the context would make it clear. (maybe this thread could be interesting about that adposition in sentence)

As for
Oe lu ta Tsayna ulte (lu) ta Kanada
I believe, a version without the second lu is correct as Pawl used the same structure to omit lu and if the context is clear.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

I believe, a version without the second lu is correct as Pawl used the same structure to omit lu and if the context is clear.

Ah, I see. So it is fine to say Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte Ačankif nìSahasì.

It got me thinking though. In the Canada/China example "sì" might work because you do have two different origins and are not completely from either. However, does that imply that Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi sì Ačankif nìSahasì is wrong?

[Vawmataw]

Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte Ačankif nìSahasì.

I would say Oeru syaw fko Atsankip nìNa'vi sì (ulte?) Ačankif nìSahasì.

[Tìtstewan]

As I thought more about it, I think I did a little mistake about this:

As for Oe lu ta Tsayna ulte (lu) ta Kanada I believe, a version without the second lu is correct as Pawl used the same structure to omit lu and if the context is clear.

Instead ulte, there should be sì.

I believe, a version without the second lu is correct as Pawl used the same structure to omit lu and if the context is clear. Ah, I see. So it is fine to say Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte Ačankif nìSahasì.

If I look at Na'viteri, I can find this:

Plltxe fko san ngaru lu mowan Txilte ulte poru nga.

If one would split that sentence into two by removing ulte, the first part would make sense but not the second one:
 [1] Plltxe fko san ngaru lu mowan Txilte
 [2] poru nga
One can see that there is missing lu. It has been omitted, so it should be "lu poru nga" 'he/she has you' by context.

Or this exaple:

Ayngari tengkrr ya wur sleru nì’ul, sìlpey oe, livu helku sang ulte te’lan lefpom.

The same here too,
 [1] Ayngari tengkrr ya wur sleru nì’ul, sìlpey oe, livu helku sang
 [2] ulte te’lan lefpom
Adding lu in the second part and it makes sense. (ok, in this case it works also as "te'lan lefpom - peaceful hearts" without lu)

It got me thinking though. In the Canada/China example "sì" might work because you do have two different origins and are not completely from either. However, does that imply that Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi sì Ačankif nìSahasì is wrong?

Hmm, to be honest, I'm not sure as I still have to think if that sentence is listing words or not. My feel says that it's not a "list sentence", so there should be ulte.
Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte oe (kop) lu Ačankif nìSahasì.
I'm not sure if one can simply omit oe lu.
However, here is one without ulte:
Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi, släkop oe lu Ačankif nìSahasì.

Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte Ačankif nìSahasì. I would say Oeru syaw fko Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte Ačankif nìSahasì.

There should be sì.
"One calls me: X and Y and Z and..."
I only have the fear, that the adverbs there breaks the lists...
I would go for:
Oeru syaw fko Atsankip nìNa'vi fu Ačankif nìSahasì

[Tirea Aean]

My question was more:

Does nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi mean nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi, or something bizarre?

Yes. It totally does mean that.

No.
nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi = You are a skypeople and a Na'vi -> "mixture"
nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi = You are a tawtute and you are a Na'vi. (It has also the meaning as one would sa to nga (1) you are a skypople and another nga (2) are a Na'vi)
The meaning is different.

I disagree. sì does not inherently have some meaning of making a mixture of the items given. After looking at every example made by Pawl, we see stuff like this:

Eo ayfo a fya’o lamu ayskxeta teya sì renulke.
‘The path ahead of them was full of rocks and irregular.’

Even some post titles like this one:

Tson sì Fpomron—Obligation and Mental Health

That is definitely not some freak hybrid mixture of obligation-and-mental health. It is a Noun array of size 2.

And here:

Pori fpomtokx sì fpomron yo’.
‘His physical and mental health are perfect.’

I have a doubt that this here is some hybrid mega-health made of both mental and physical. It's a list. We're iterating over a list of two things. To separate list items, we use sì...

And in this comment:

Ngeyä ke ftang a tìkangkemìri sì tìkanuri sì fìlì’fyayä tìyawnìri seiyi oe irayo nìtxan.

~"I thank you very much for your nonstop work and intelligence and love for this language."

Tell me that's a mixture or hybrid. Clearly this is just an array of things, singular, non mutually-exclusive. We're just iterating one by one separating with sì. sì does not mean grinded up or genetic mixture.

So if I want to say "I am a Chinese person AND (I am) a Canadian person", can I say Oe lu ta Tsayna sì Kanada? That seems very wrong, as if "China and Canada" were the name of one country.

Is Oe lu ta Tsayna ulte (lu) ta Kanada correct without adding the lu?

Well, usually, nationalities use za'u ftu; Oe za'u ftu Tsayna sì Kanata.

The problem with this is not that there is some kind of impossible hybrid or mixture going on, but that you are trying to say you came from two very distant-from-each-other places at the same time. I'd love to know how you did that. Unless of course you came from China and Passed through Canada or came from Canada after passing through China. Or something like that. And as far as nationality goes, how can you honestly be both? You could probably be a citizen of both States, but can you actually claim to no longer be Chinese after having gained Canadian citizenship? Meh.

Anyways, this sentence is still technically grammatical, it just doesn't really make a lot of intuitive sense in any way semantically.

As for Na'vi: I think that this ambiguity that is part of natural languages. Why does Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi not mean "You are a tawtute-and-Na'vi-at-the-same-time"? Well, because that meaning makes no sense Over time, natural languages tend to evolve to remove confusing sentences with more than one meaning, so in general, although natural languages are horrible to describe logically, a normal person can usually find out what a sentence means without even thinking about it.

Absolutely this. ^

I studied mathematics, so my first reflex was to try to describe what I mean in terms of set theory, but I failed until now I have some more ideas, if it works out, I'll post them here.

Set Theory is kinda wacky and unstable in certain situations. The barber paradox and all.

If the sentence would be like Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi, it would be totally ok.

Right. And this would be correct too.

Menga = array("nga0", "nga1");
Mesute = array("tawtute", "N'vi");

Here, we are now mapping each element of the Menga array onto the Mesute array:

Menga[0] = Mesute[0];
Menga[1] = Mesute[1];

In poems, the sentence "Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi" is ok. But usually, I would not write that as I ask me how one can be a (physical) tawtute and a (physical) Na'vi as one?

The words tawtute and Na'vi are a bad example to use because they are inherently mutuall exclusive unless you count Avatar as a special case of inheriting all attributes from both classes.

Let's use two things that are not mutually exclusive.

I am a man and student.
Oe lu tutan sì numeyu.

Is there a problem now?

Regarding Oe lu ta Tsayna sì Kanata, I think, this sentence is ok as ta shows that you are from China and Canada. Also, you can be "half Canadian and half Chinese" if one interprate it in this way and bot are humans.

Ok. I think I agree.

To make it totally clear that you are from the both country, I would write:

Oe lu ta Tsayna sì kop (ta) Kanata.
'I'm from China and also from Canada'

As for me, I could write:

Oe lu ta Europa sì Toitslan sì kop Romania.
I'm from Europe, Germany and also from Romania.

I'm not 100% sure if one can omit the second ta, but, I think, the context would make it clear. (maybe this thread could be interesting about that adposition in sentence)

I agree. Your usage of sì here checks out and makes sense.

As for
Oe lu ta Tsayna ulte (lu) ta Kanada
I believe, a version without the second lu is correct as Pawl used the same structure to omit lu and if the context is clear.

Hmmm... Something just feels off using ulte and there not being an explicit verb come after it. And once you've commited this redundant structure, why not just use the non-redundant structure using sì? It's more common and less clunky. But I guess saying Oe lu .. ulte oe lu.. ulte oe lu...... isn't incorrect, just redundant and weird.

I believe, a version without the second lu is correct as Pawl used the same structure to omit lu and if the context is clear.

Ah, I see. So it is fine to say Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte Ačankif nìSahasì.

It got me thinking though. In the Canada/China example "sì" might work because you do have two different origins and are not completely from either. However, does that imply that Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi sì Ačankif nìSahasì is wrong?

Yes. Because I feel two different clauses here. I think it may be the different adverb after the ulte which seems to refer back to the first lu, making it more obvious that the "oe lu" has been repeated.

If you say ulte and after it there is no verb or no adverb that refers back to the verb in the first clause, It leaves me very inclined to ask you to finish your sentence with a verb or verb phrase. If you say sì, I expect to see a Noun array, Adjective array, or Noun-phrase array in the following forms:

A sì B; or
A sì B sì C......sì N; or
A, B, C..... sì N.

Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte Ačankif nìSahasì.

I would say Oeru syaw fko Atsankip nìNa'vi sì (ulte?) Ačankif nìSahasì.

I feel it should be ulte, and I agree.

As I thought more about it, I think I did a little mistake about this:

As for Oe lu ta Tsayna ulte (lu) ta Kanada I believe, a version without the second lu is correct as Pawl used the same structure to omit lu and if the context is clear.

Instead ulte, there should be sì.

Oe lu ta Tsayna sì Kanata.
Oe lu ta Tsayna ulte kop oe lu ta Kanata.
^those.

If I look at Na'viteri, I can find this:

Plltxe fko san ngaru lu mowan Txilte ulte poru nga.

If one would split that sentence into two by removing ulte, the first part would make sense but not the second one:
 [1] Plltxe fko san ngaru lu mowan Txilte
 [2] poru nga
One can see that there is missing lu. It has been omitted, so it should be "lu poru nga" 'he/she has you' by context.

Right. ulte is around for the mere purpose to join two independent clauses. But of course, we know that sometimes things can be removed to make things smooth and less redundant. The whole sentence would have been something like this:

Plltxe fko san ngaru lu mowan Txlite ulte poru lu mowan nga sìk.

[1] Plltxe fko san {
[1a]    ngaru lu mowan Txlte
         ulte
[1b]    poru lu mowan nga
     } sìk

Or this exaple:

Ayngari tengkrr ya wur sleru nì’ul, sìlpey oe, livu helku sang ulte te’lan lefpom.

The same here too,
 [1] Ayngari tengkrr ya wur sleru nì’ul, sìlpey oe, livu helku sang
 [2] ulte te’lan lefpom
Adding lu in the second part and it makes sense. (ok, in this case it works also as "te'lan lefpom - peaceful hearts" without lu)

Right again.

The whole redundant complete version:

Ayngari tengkrr ya wur sleru nì'ul, sìlpey oe tsnì livu helku sang ulte sìlpey oe tsnì livu te'lan lefpom.

Ayngari tengkrr ya wur sleru nì'ul //Indepedent clause 1
sìlpey oe { //Independent clause 2; Unit A
  tsnì livu helku sang //Dependent clause 1
} //end unit A
ulte //join Unit A with Unit B
sìlpey oe { //Independent clause 3; Unit B
  tsnì livu te'lan lefpom //Dependent clause 2
} //end unit B

It got me thinking though. In the Canada/China example "sì" might work because you do have two different origins and are not completely from either. However, does that imply that Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi sì Ačankif nìSahasì is wrong?

Hmm, to be honest, I'm not sure as I still have to think if that sentence is listing words or not. My feel says that it's not a "list sentence", so there should be ulte.

I agree.

Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte oe (kop) lu Ačankif nìSahasì.
I'm not sure if one can simply omit oe lu.
However, here is one without ulte:
Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi, släkop oe lu Ačankif nìSahasì.

I'd say the släkop feels nicer with a complementary ken'aw:

Oe lu ken'aw Atsankip nìNa'vi, släkop lu oe Ačankif nìSahasì.

Because for there to be a slä, there must be some statement you are saying something contrary or opposite to.

Oe lu Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte Ačankif nìSahasì. I would say Oeru syaw fko Atsankip nìNa'vi ulte Ačankif nìSahasì.

There should be sì.
"One calls me: X and Y and Z and..."
I only have the fear, that the adverbs there breaks the lists...
I would go for:
Oeru syaw fko Atsankip nìNa'vi fu Ačankif nìSahasì

Yes! I think that the adverb somehow break the list too. And I agree that you could also use fu there just as well. It nicely gets rid of the problem in this case.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Tirea, I was thinking about the "array" thing too. But if we interpret sì as making a list or array, Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi does not make a lot of sense, because tawtute and Na'vi are nouns, not adjectives:

"You are (list 'a human' 'a Na'vi')"

"You" is not a list of two items...in any case this doesn't seem to mean the same thing as nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi, "You are human AND you are Na'vi"

[Tìtstewan]

No, an array of nouns works with sì like in "Oe lu tawtute sì numeyu.", both are nouns. The problem is the example "Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi". How do one can be a "tawtute" and also a "Na'vi"? The thing here is, "nga" is in singular and we are tying to "desribe" a person as tawtute and Na'vi, which is somehow illogical.

If the sentece is written as:
[1][2]Menga lu tawtute sì Na'vi = [1] Nga lu tawtute [ulte] [2] Nga lu Na'vi
Or in math:
[X_1,2 = A + B] = [(X₁ = A) + (X₂ = B)]
Two (different) Nga = tawtute + Na'vi, but one of the nga is a tawtute ans another one is a Na'vi

But why Oe lu tawtute sì Na'vi doesn't work as in math it would be so simple,
X₁ = A + B?
Because, A would be a person/body and B would be also a person/body, but X₁ can be only one person/body, so in math, it would be
[1 = 1 + 1]
which is, of course wrong.
Yeah, and before one ask why "oe lu tawtute sì numeyu" is correct, it is, because numeyu can refer to the tawtute which Na'vi can't:
So, in math: [1 = 1 = 1]

Weird, kefyak?

And this:

The words tawtute and Na'vi are a bad example to use because they are inherently mutuall exclusive unless you count Avatar as a special case of inheriting all attributes from both classes.

Because for there to be a slä, there must be some statement you are saying something contrary or opposite to.

But Pawl wrote that släkop can appear itself?

Well, usually, nationalities use za'u ftu; Oe za'u ftu Tsayna sì Kanata. The problem with this is not that there is some kind of impossible hybrid or mixture going on, but that you are trying to say you came from two very distant-from-each-other places at the same time. I'd love to know how you did that. Unless of course you came from China and Passed through Canada or came from Canada after passing through China. Or something like that. And as far as nationality goes, how can you honestly be both? You could probably be a citizen of both States, but can you actually claim to no longer be Chinese after having gained Canadian citizenship? Meh. Anyways, this sentence is still technically grammatical, it just doesn't really make a lot of intuitive sense in any way semantically.

I'd agree.
Peatxkxe nga za'u ftu?
 - Oe za'u ftu Toitslan.

Peatxkxemì nga lolu?
Oe lolu tsayatxkxemì alu Toitslan, Franse, 'Ìngan...
I know, it's very english/deutsch... I would use folrrfen instead that lu mì construction.

Mesute = array("tawtute", "Na'vi"); Menga[0] = Mesute[0]; Menga[1] = Mesute[1];

As I did a little weird math above...

Oe lu ta Tsayna sì Kanata. Oe lu ta Tsayna ulte kop oe lu ta Kanata. ^those.

Yes.

[Tirea Aean]

Tirea, I was thinking about the "array" thing too. But if we interpret sì as making a list or array, Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi does not make a lot of sense, because tawtute and Na'vi are nouns, not adjectives:

"You are (list 'a human' 'a Na'vi')"

It's an array of nouns. As I said, sì may join either nouns or adjectives in an array. And whatever you come up with can only make sense if each item in the array is not mutually exclusive with the other ones. One of the nouns or adj. cannot have an attribute defined as not the attribute of another or we have a contradiction. Or hypocrisy.

This would not make sense:

male = not female;
female = not male;

A is male and female.

Here, the definitions make these two things mutually exclusive. It is a contradiction to be both so you can only be one xor the other.

student = person who learns;
teacher = person who teaches;

B is student and teacher.

This can be true, because what if person B both teaches and learns? It is possible for B to be both of these nouns at the same time as one person.

tawtute = not Na'vi;

C is tawtute and Na'vi.

This makes no sense because in order to be a tawtute, you must be foreign and not Na'vi. So to claim that C is both of these mutually exclusive things is a contradiction.

"You" is not a list of two items...in any case this doesn't seem to mean the same thing as nga lu tawtute ulte nga lu Na'vi, "You are human AND you are Na'vi"

You is not a list of two items... Unless you define it as such using a sentence like

You are a student and a teacher.

Now, you assume both roles at the same time. You = {student,teacher};

Are you really saying that you as one person can only be one noun, ever? How is that even possible? We have so many words for what a person is based on their conditions, their activity and association with other people, places, and events etc.

No, an array of nouns works with sì like in "Oe lu tawtute sì numeyu.", both are nouns. The problem is the example "Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi". How do one can be a "tawtute" and also a "Na'vi"? The thing here is, "nga" is in singular and we are tying to "desribe" a person as tawtute and Na'vi, which is somehow illogical.

See what I said above. In my opinion, this sentence only makes no sense because it's a contradiction based on what a tawtute and Na'vi are. One person can be infinitely many nouns, if that person satisfies the definitions for those nouns.

I am a male, a student, a programmer, a brother, and a son.

How do you explain that? This sentence is clearly grammatical and logical.

Weird, kefyak?

Weird indeed.

Because for there to be a slä, there must be some statement you are saying something contrary or opposite to.

But Pawl wrote that släkop can appear itself?

Ok, yes, I see where he said that. Yeah. Släkop can indeed appear by itself. Ngaytxoa

[Tìtstewan]

No, an array of nouns works with sì like in "Oe lu tawtute sì numeyu.", both are nouns. The problem is the example "Nga lu tawtute sì Na'vi". How do one can be a "tawtute" and also a "Na'vi"? The thing here is, "nga" is in singular and we are tying to "desribe" a person as tawtute and Na'vi, which is somehow illogical.

See what I said above. In my opinion, this sentence only makes no sense because it's a contradiction based on what a tawtute and Na'vi are. One person can be infinitely many nouns, if that person satisfies the definitions for those nouns.

I am a male, a student, a programmer, a brother, and a son.

How do you explain that? This sentence is clearly grammatical and logical.

I didn't wrote that listing nouns are wrong. It's exactly that what I try to say, the definition of tawtute and Na'vi.
It totally make sense to say, I'm a male, a programmer etc.

I would expect a reaction like this:

If I tell you, I'm a human and an alien.
 

[Tirea Aean]

HRH!

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Are you really saying that you as one person can only be one noun, ever? How is that even possible? We have so many words for what a person is based on their conditions, their activity and association with other people, places, and events etc.

I think the problem really comes from the ill-definedness of be. The be in "You are a student" has a fundamentally different meaning from the be in "You are the first person counting from the left". In the first case, the meaning is "You can be categorized as a student", while the second sentence really defines what is meant by "you": there is only one person that satisfies "the first person counting from the left." I meant that a person can only be one of the latter. But I digress.

In Chinese and Japanese, one type of sentence would have arguments coordinated with an ulte analog: Japanese literally translated *nga numeyu lu ulte karyu (lu). The other type of sentence uses a sì analog since the meaning is different: nga lu re'o sì mikyun sì kxetse sì nari...

I am not suggesting that Chinese and Japanese is more "natural", as all languages have their own quirks. But it does show that this is an area where languages don't agree with each other. My pet rule is that if something is underspecified by Ayhoren, only use it if all three in Chinese, Japanese, and English agree.

It may be my L1 influencing me, but I feel there is a fundamental, intrinsic difference between

Nga lu re'o sì mikyun sì kxetse sì... and
Nga lu karyu sì numeyu.

The second, literally translated into Mandarin or Japanese, would mean the bizarre "You are {a teacher and a student}"; i.e. you (singular) somehow was physically two people (joined by a string??? borg hive mind???). At the very least, it feels HIGHLY marked: I would use it to hint that the two identities (teacher and student) are somehow heterogeneous and disconnected for example. You are one, but yet two.

The first means the literal array meaning. You are an array of different objects, which assembled becomes you.

However, the second seems to be conventionally understood as a contracted ulte lu, while the first seems to comfortably fit in the definition of sì. If we rigidly follow Ayhoren and Dictionary's definition of sì, the second use seems less sure than the first one. I am intuitively much more comfortable saying the second as Nga lu karyu ulte numeyu (kop). Somehow I don't feel the rule is "ulte can turn into sì when the two words right next to it on the paper are nouns".

I do feel very comfortable with sentences like Nga lu tsawl sì keftxo though, in particular because tsawl sì keftxo can be treated as one unit and it still works.

Finally, I scoured around Na'viteri. Curiously, Pawl does not seem to use constructions analogous to Nga lu karyu sì numeyu. It always involves ulte in some shape or form.

[Blue Elf]

Well, usually, nationalities use za'u ftu; Oe za'u ftu Tsayna sì Kanata.

AFAIR, za'u ftu mean physical movement (Oe za'u ftu Tsayna = I travelled here from China);
za'u ta means origin (Oe za'u ta Tsayna = I was born China). I don't see any connection with nationality....

I am intuitively much more comfortable saying the second as Nga lu karyu ulte numeyu (kop). Somehow I don't feel the rule is "ulte can turn into sì when the two words right next to it on the paper are nouns".

I do feel very comfortable with sentences like Nga lu tsawl sì keftxo though, in particular because tsawl sì keftxo can be treated as one unit and it still works.

But both usages seems to have same meaning, as you mentioned before:
X has these properties, where property = adjective or noun.
I would not search for any fault in lu definition, think about your examples like this:
You are a student = Object You has this property: is student
You are the first person counting from the left = Object You has this property: is the first in line from the left

Satisfying enough?