Does it also work like this?

[GEOvanne]

I'm doing to work sheet from here: http://forum.learnnavi.org/intermediate/worksheets/

This one in particular:
http://zombat.roosteredge.com/navi/grammar/final/navi_grammar_1.4_erg.accu.pdf


On page 3 (fill in the blanks.
The answer for question 1 is: Oe taronyu lu.
I understand that since the -ri markers isnt being used for these exercises.
But could it also be: Oeri taronyu lu. ?

But the main problem I have is with question 9 and 5.

Answer for 5 is: Ikran ke rol.

Answer for 9 is: Poe tspang fa tukru.


For 5, since "not sing" is some thing the ikran does, should it be "Ikran-l ke rol"?

And for 9, she "kills" is a verb. Its not saying "she is a killer", it is saying what she does, so shouldn't it be "Poe-l tspang fatukru-ti" ?
Also, what does the 'fa' infront of 'tukru' mean?

[Carborundum]

The answer for question 1 is: Oe taronyu lu.
I understand that since the -ri markers isnt being used for these exercises.
But could it also be: Oeri taronyu lu. ?

No. What would be the point of used the topical there?

For 5, since "not sing" is some thing the ikran does, should it be "Ikran-l ke rol"?

Rol is intransitive, so no ergative case is needed.

And for 9, she "kills" is a verb. Its not saying "she is a killer", it is saying what she does, so shouldn't it be "Poe-l tspang fatukru-ti" ?
Also, what does the 'fa' infront of 'tukru' mean?

Note that the sentence translates as "she kills with a spear". Fa means "with", tukru means "spear". Poel tspang tukrut would mean "she kills the spear" (the ergative-accusative combo would indeed be required if this was the intended meaning).
While tspang is generally a transitive verb, here it is being used intransitively because there is no object. Therefore the ergative is again unnecessary.

Special case alert: if the above sentence is part of a narrative, there might be an object that isn't being mentioned. For example, take the sentences "Jake and Neytiri hunt hexapede. He hunts with a bow. She hunts with a spear." Here the hexapede remains the object all along, and the correct translation of "she hunts with a spear" would be "poel taron fa tukru".

[Payä Tìrol]

The worksheets are really old and I remember the first one had all sorts of inappropriate use of the topical. You should probably avoid them for now.

[Plumps]

Special case alert: if the above sentence is part of a narrative, there might be an object that isn't being mentioned. For example, take the sentences "Jake and Neytiri hunt hexapede. He hunts with a bow. She hunts with a spear." Here the hexapede remains the object all along, and the correct translation of "she hunts with a spear" would be "poel taron fa tukru".

I have never heard of this 'rule' before... Is there a canon example for that?

[Pxia Säsngap]

I'm not sure about the answer for your question to the first sentence. I guess it could also be oeri, but in this case it's not needed. If this sentence is in a paragraph and you want to leave out the oe in the next sentence/part of the sentence you can use the topical on it.
Ma frapo, did I explain this correctly?

For sentence 5 you don't need the ergative form on ikran, because the ergative is only needed when your sentence has also got an object. So if ikran would feed it's baby(for example), you'd have got a subject (ikran) and an accusative object (it's baby). Then you'd need the ergative form on ikran and the accusative ending on baby=prrnen. So the sentence would be: Ikran-ìl f-eyä prrnen-it yomtìng. Also the ergative of ikran would not be Ikran-l but ikran-ìl, because the word ends with a consonant.

To sentence 9: No it doesn't. Because fa(=with/by means of) is an adposition and "describes" tukru. So fa tukru isn't an accusative object but some kind of adverb.(Ma frapo, isn't it called prepositional phrase or something? Forgot the correct name, I'm sorry.) The sentence doesn't have an accusative object so the ergative isn't needed.

Hope this answer is of help.

[Carborundum]

Special case alert: if the above sentence is part of a narrative, there might be an object that isn't being mentioned. For example, take the sentences "Jake and Neytiri hunt hexapede. He hunts with a bow. She hunts with a spear." Here the hexapede remains the object all along, and the correct translation of "she hunts with a spear" would be "poel taron fa tukru".

I have never heard of this 'rule' before... Is there a canon example for that?

(7) nantangìl tse'a yerikit The viperwolf sees a hexapede.
(8) nantangìl tse'a The viperwolf sees (something).

Notice in sentence (8) that even though I don't explicitly name the thing seen, I still mark the subject with the agentive. The verb is still transitive.

Not sure if Frommer has said anything specifically about this, but I'm prepared to trust that wm.annis knows what he's talking about.

[Plumps]

Totally forgot about that ... thanks, ma Carborundum.

But that conjures up a new mystery from the latest comprehension example, where he clearly says
Oe piveng ayngar nì'it teri Txewì...

oe without ergative although the thing he tells us, namely a story about Txewì is not names (vur or somthing like that)

[Carborundum]

Totally forgot about that ... thanks, ma Carborundum.

But that conjures up a new mystery from the latest comprehension example, where he clearly says
Oe piveng ayngar nì'it teri Txewì...

oe without ergative although the thing he tells us, namely a story about Txewì is not names (vur or somthing like that)

I don't think there is an unspecified object here. "I will tell you a little about Txewì" and "I will tell you a little story (that is) about Txewì" are very similar, but there are key differences. Note for example that "little" in the first sentence is an adverb, whereas it's an adjective in the second.
Now that you've brought that sentence up however, I have to admit that I'm confused about his usage of the subjunctive in peng. What's its function there?

[Plumps]

Yes, interesting question!
I forwarded the question to the appropriate thread

[wm.annis]

Not sure if Frommer has said anything specifically about this, but I'm prepared to trust that wm.annis knows what he's talking about.

Well, Frommer does link to the cases page from Naviteri.org, so I think we can expect it's not far off.

[Muzer]

Yes, but he also linked to the LN vocab page back when it was crap.

['Oma Tirea]

Yes, but he also linked to the LN vocab page back when it was crap.

0_0

Must've been awhile since I've seen that page as now see it's miraculous update (still missing "kew" in the number chart, though...).