-eyk- + -äp-, is it possible?

Started by Kemaweyan, January 26, 2014, 05:58:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kemaweyan

As we know, we can use infixes -äp- and -eyk- together and it would mean «cause oneself to do something»:

  po täpeykìyeverkeiup nìnäk
  I am jazzed that he is apparently about to drink himself to death

But is it possible to use -eyk- before -äp-? For example:

  Oel poti yeykäpur.

I think it would mean «I cause him to wash himself» (intransitive yäpur + -eyk-). What do you think?
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tìtstewan

I remember me, about this was written something. *on searching*

-| 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. |-

Kemaweyan

I don't remember.. I think we have not any information about it.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tìtstewan

I found only this:
Quote from: Kemaweyan on July 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Oeyä tìpawmìri tìeyng:

Quote from: Pawl@Kemaweyan: Ngeyä tìpawmìri irayo, ma Kemaweyan. Nìngay lu ngar tìyawr, lu ngar tìkxey. Tsalì'uri alu zeyko lu kemlì'uvi (lì'u atxantsan nang!) mì kamtseng: z-eyk-o . . . Ha lu lì'u letrrtrr nì'aw. Oel lumpe tsat solung mì upxare? Fte wivìntxu futa lesar lu fìlì'u nìtxan. Tsalsungay tsalì'u alu zeykuso lu eyawr. Slä zene fko pivlltxe san zäpeyko sìk. (*Zeykäpo lu keyawr.) Ulte kawkrr ke tsun fko pivlltxe san *zeykeyko!

Kemaweyan asked a good question, so let me explain this in English so it's available to more people. He noted that zeyko appears to be a garden-variety derivative of zo, with the causative infix -eyk- added: zeyko = z-eyk-o. If that's true, then why give it a special place in the vocabulary? This led Kemaweyan to speculate it might actually be a separate lexical item not derived via -eyk-, which could then lead to a form like *zeykeyko.

K.'s first impression was correct: zeyko is just the causative form of zo. I called it out only to emphasize its usefulness: it's the standard way to say "fix" or "heal." But he's right: It didn't have to be included.

The question of how the "pre-first position" infixes relate to each other and to the rest of the infix inventory is important, so I'll save it for a future post.

Ha tsun fko sivar <eyk> sì <äp> 'awsiteng srak? Tsalsungay, zene awnga pivey haya 'upxareri ro fìlok ::)

-| 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. |-

Tìtstewan

Double post!

And here was the same question:
"I caused myself to..."
Quote from: 'Oma Tirea on July 19, 2010, 09:07:21 AM
'Aw hì'i tìpawm: how would you translate these sentences:

1} I made myself kill.

2} I caused myself to laugh.

My attempts:

1} Oe tsp<eyk><äp>ang

2} Oe h<äp><eyk>angaham

However, somehow this doesn't seem right because <eyk> and <äp> come in the same infix position :-\

Can anyone see the problem here?

Irayo in advance.

-| 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. |-

Kemaweyan

Quote from: Tìtstewan on January 26, 2014, 07:21:50 AM
*Zeykäpo lu keyawr.

Hmm.. I really don't remember, though it was my question  :-[ Well. But zo is intransitive and it's obvious that we can't use -äp- there. *Zäpo is wrong. But zeyko is transitive, so we can add -äp- to this verb. I think it's a reason why zäpeyko is correct and *zeykäpo - wrong.

But if the verb is transitive, we can add -äp-, right? For example tspäpang - kill oneself, it's correct (unlike *zäpo). Can we add -eyk- to this verb (with -äp-)? It's my question.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Blue Elf

Very interesting question. AFAIK we weren't told whether <eyk> can go before <äp>, we have only <äpeyk> examples.
But based on your last post and first example:
- <äp> can't go into vin. - can't be used in terkup (what is vin.)
- <eyk> can be put into vin. - can be put into terkup
So if we can create täpeykerkup, <eyk> must be used first, then we can add <äp>. This doesn't answer question, ok, start from different end.

Oel yur fkxenit -> I wash vegetable.
Ngal yeykur fkxenit oeru -> You caused me to wash vegetable.
What happens if we add <äp>? One of object should disappear...
Ngal yäpeykur fkxenit -> You cause yourself to wash vegetable. Looks correct....

Oe yäpur -> I wash myself
What happens if we add <eyk>? One object should be added...
Oel yäpeykur poti -> I cause myself to wash you (?). Should be correct too - <äp> infix means that subject performs action on itself.
If we say that *<eykäp> is possible, it should still work the same way as in green definition (what wikipedia says about reflexive verb).

But now we need to know how to say "I cause him to wash himself".
*Oel yeykur pot poru looks weird (I caused him to wash him), maybe we need topical?
* Pori oel yeykur pot (?). I'm afraid only Paul can help here, or we need some new word...
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Prrton

Oel poti yeykäpur certainly could work theoretically. There are classes of infixes in certain polysynthetic languages that do move around. In Klingon they are called "rovers", but my hunch is that K. Pawl would not want this for Na'vi. It's only my hunch.

We should ask him.

My intuition is that we'd have to say Oel leykolen futa po yäpur. or Oel fngayo' futa fo yäpilvur lisre fwa fkol yom wutsot.

Typically with this type of "causation" (make x do y in the case of people) it's actually some form of persuasion. It's not direct causation. That might play some factor. Not sure. ????


Plumps

I also wanted to suggest a form of futa-clause to circumvent the issue in a safe way. We don't have the verb "to cause" or "the cause" but I always felt that eyk (vtr.) and ‹eyk› were somehow connected. So, maybe *Oel oleyk futa po yäpur "lit.: I led the thing/action that he washes himself".
But I agree that this is a question for Pawl if we want to have a final ruling.

Blue Elf

Seems that futa can solve this, I just haven't seen this solution. Sometimes it seems to be problem that we have no verb like "to cause (something)", but apparently we have ways how to overcome it :) applause for you both
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Plumps

Just thought about that again and had the idea of

     oefa po yäpeykur
     "he causes himself to wash by means of me" (i.e. through my will/doing)

Not quite the intended meaning perhaps, but it could be seen as a special construction... :-\ What do you think?

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

The construction with futa seems to be the most clear. Still, though, an excellent question for K. Pawl.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Kemaweyan

Quote from: Plumps on February 05, 2014, 05:32:11 PM
Just thought about that again and had the idea of

     oefa po yäpeykur
     "he causes himself to wash by means of me" (i.e. through my will/doing)

Not quite the intended meaning perhaps, but it could be seen as a special construction... :-\ What do you think?


-äp- + fa? I think it does not make sense :-\
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tìtstewan

This sound weird.
How I could imagine that action?




I thougth about it too:

Oel taron yerikit.
I hunt hexapede.

Pol oeru teykaron yerikit.
He makes me to hunt hexapade.


Oel yur oeti.
I wash me.

Pol yeykur oeru oeti.
He makes me to wash me.

I think, in transitive verbs <eyk> just changes the original subject into dative, so the <äp> infix *should* refer to the dative, because of <eyk>.
Also note, that a direct objekt makes no sense with <äp>, so it should disappear, because it a reflexive form.

Oe yäpur.
I wash myself.

Pol yäpeykur oeru.
He makes me to wash myself.

It's plausible?

-| 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. |-

Kemaweyan

Quote from: Tìtstewan on February 06, 2014, 04:14:31 AM
Pol yäpeykur oeru.
He makes me to wash myself.

No. -äp- makes the verb reflective, so it would mean «He makes himself to wash» and oeru is wrong here (agentive is wrong too). It's like an example po täpeykìyeverkeiup nìnäk.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tìtstewan

Damn... :(

Have anyone sent a question about this to Pawl?

-| 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. |-

Plumps

I think the LEP discussed to take on this question for him


Quote from: Kemaweyan on February 06, 2014, 03:25:02 AM
-äp- + fa? I think it does not make sense :-\

Quote from: Kemaweyan on February 06, 2014, 05:05:13 AMNo. -äp- makes the verb reflective, so it would mean «He makes himself to wash» and oeru is wrong here (agentive is wrong too). It's like an example po täpeykìyeverkeiup nìnäk.

If I substitute nìnäk via fa naer we also have a construct of ‹äp(eyk)› with fa. Actually, I don't understand the adverb any other way than "through, by way of drinking"

Kemaweyan

I mean fa with oe does not make a sense. I understand fa as an instrument of doing. Tspang fa tsko - it means that I use a bow to kill. I think in your example po does not use oe :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Plumps

Ah, now I understand what you mean ;)

Yeah, I feel the same way about fa being used for the instrument. I was just joggling around with various ideas and that's why I said that I could imagine this being a 'special' construct (which had to be confirmed by K. Pawl of course ;) ) if no other solution arose. :)

Tanri

#19
Hmm.
I think that the difficulties of this construction must be looked at from the viewpoint of the meaning and sense, not from strict grammar perspective.
Please remember that grammar and logic is used for express some meaning, not vice versa.
Therefore, <äp> and <eyk> infixes are not intended to decrease or increase transitivity, but primarily for change of meaning. The grammatical change is a result, not a cause.

A random examples:
Oel poti yur - I am washing him
Oe yäpur - I am washing myself
OK, easy. Go further:

Oel poti yeykur - I am causing him to wash.
YES, this is the point. Keep in mind that transitive verbs can be used intransitively as well, in general sense.
The -ti isn't here for mark an object, but for telling us WHO is physically doing that particular action.
So, this example tells only that "Because of me, he washes." Without any clarification, WHAT is being washed.
I can solve this ambiguity by adding a object, something that is being washed:

Oel poru yeykur fkxenit - I am causing him to wash vegetable.
Easy and clear again.
Now, what happens when I'll add <äp> infix, the one that reflects the action back to the subject (to the "doer"):

Oel poti yäpeykur - I am causing him to wash oneself.
This must be the only possible translation, because <äp> means that the doer of the action is doing something on himself, not on anything on anybody else.
I cannot be the doer, because I am only causing something to happen, not directly doing it.


Back to the original sentences:
1} I made myself kill.
2} I caused myself to laugh.

First one should probably be "I made myself to kill", in general sense - without specifying what or who I have killed:

Oel oeti tspeykang. -  I made myself to kill.
Please notice that -l and -t don't stand for pair of subject object. -l marks the cause, -t marks the doer.
Following this logic, the next step can be to add something being killed:

Oel oeru tspeykang yerikit. - I made myself to kill the hexapede.
Oel oeru tspeykang oet. or Oel oeti tspeykäpang. - I made myself to kill myself. / I made myself to commit suicide.

Now, according to my opinion, the second sentence should look this way:
Oel oeti heykangham. - I caused myself to laugh.
There is no use for <äp> in this sentence, because there is no action to be performed on someone or on something.


..... Please, accept my apologies for this huge post with many errors (for sure), but short explanation would not be sufficient to explain my thoughts.


Edit: As for order of <äp> and <eyk> in sequence, they both fit to the pre-first position, and the relative order of them should be irrelevant, in my opinion.
"Oel poti yäpeykur" and "Oel poti yeykäpur" should be the same (I am causing him to wash oneself).

And indeed, please imagine that there is "*" mark in front of every sentence you think isn't correct, all you just have read is purely my speculation ;D
Tätxawyu akì'ong.