How should pe+ constructions be classed?

[Kiliyä]

In Taronyu's dictionary, the pe+ constructions, including things like pehrr and peu, et al, are classed as adv.  But is this accurate?  What about interrogative particles, or even correlatives?  What say you?

[Taronyu]

What say you?

Aragorn is the man.

/ontopic. Poll?

I suggest correlatives for the entire lot.

[Kiliyä]

So,

pe+
fì=
fra-
tsa-

Any others?  Do we need a table, like Esperanto?

[omängum fra'uti]

fay+ (Plural of fì)
*tsay+ (Plural of tsa?)
*la- other

[Kiliyä]

And lay-, others?

[Taronyu]

I added all of those.

Perhaps I could sue the word deictics?

[Kiliyä]

I added all of those.

Perhaps I could sue the word deictics?

For how much?

[Ftiafpi]

I added all of those.

Perhaps I could sue the word deictics?

For how much?

ROFL!

[roger]

I suggest correlatives for the entire lot.

That recalls the Esperanto set, which is similar, so may be a good idea for the whole set (not just the pe+ words). But as far as I can tell, technically it's incorrect. Per the OED, "correlatives" are "words corresponding to each other, and regularly used together, each in one member of a compound or complex sentence: e.g. either—or; so—as."

In Esperanto, that works because the relative pronouns are regularly used with the demonstratives: tio—kio, tiam—kiam, tiel—kiel, etc. (the latter being "so—as"), and this covers 40% of the table. But Na'vi doesn't have relative pronouns, and I haven't seen these words working together like this. (Has anyone else?)

[roger]

In Taronyu's dictionary, the pe+ constructions, including things like pehrr and peu, et al, are classed as adv.  But is this accurate?  What about interrogative particles, or even correlatives?  What say you?

I'd just call them "interrogatives". Most are interrogative adverbs, but peu, pesu are interrogative pronouns.

[omängum fra'uti]

What about
pepak?  (What the....)
pepxasìk (What the f...)

(Tongue firmly planted in cheek of course)

[suomichris]

Well, if we're thinking just about the question words, then I'd class them as question words :p  Or interrogatives if we want to be fancy...

They're not really deictics, since the part that replaces the question marker pe- is the deictic bit...

[Lance R. Casey]

In Taronyu's dictionary, the pe+ constructions, including things like pehrr and peu, et al, are classed as adv.  But is this accurate?  What about interrogative particles, or even correlatives?  What say you?

I'd just call them "interrogatives". Most are interrogative adverbs, but peu, pesu are interrogative pronouns.

I too would prefer to label all pe+-words "interrogatives" and be done with it. As for the other kinds, the situation seems to be a bit more complex.

The demonstrative prefixes have been demonstrated (ha) as both noun modifiers and VP modifiers, even within the same clause:

Fayvrrtep fìtsenge lu kxanì

The first word is still an intransitive subject, as it would be without the deictic marker, whereas the second word has changed into an adverbial role. On the other hand, there's in all likelihood nothing strange about fìtseng lu lor either, so I don't think we can unequivocally classify words modified in this way. The modifiers themselves could be called deictics, but the words arising from them would probably have to be classified on a case by case basis, and quite possibly with more than one definition. We know that Na'vi has at least one word that is flexible in such a way also by itself: krr.

[Taronyu]

Classed all pe+ words as interrogatives.

For fì words: should I use deictic? Or correlatives? Or demonstratives?

[roger]

They are not correlatives. They are deictic, but demonstrative is more precise.