I ask myself how/what/who...

Started by Tìtstewan, November 04, 2014, 02:46:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

This all makes better sense now. The easy way to remember this rule is that you have to have to have an direct 'object' to act back on when using <äp>, so it requires the verb be transitive to begin with. The verb becomes intransitive, as there is no longer any place for a direct object other than the reflexive subject.

Still there, is there a real difference between "I ask I" or "I ask myself"? The first one is a bit odd, but makes sense in English at least.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tìtstewan

It's rather "I ask to me". A curious way to create a pseudo-reflexive with intransitive verbs. :)

-| 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: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on November 07, 2014, 04:22:06 PM
Still there, is there a real difference between "I ask I" or "I ask myself"? The first one is a bit odd, but makes sense in English at least.

Pawl said that with 1st person we should use oe rather than sno. So it should be oe pawm oer (literally I ask to me) rather than oe pawm snor (I ask myself) :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tirea Aean

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on November 07, 2014, 04:22:06 PM
This all makes better sense now. The easy way to remember this rule is that you have to have to have an direct 'object' to act back on when using <äp>, so it requires the verb be transitive to begin with. The verb becomes intransitive, as there is no longer any place for a direct object other than the reflexive subject.

Still there, is there a real difference between "I ask I" or "I ask myself"? The first one is a bit odd, but makes sense in English at least.

Pretty much that's it. You can't apply a verb on your self if it can't even be applied on anything at all.

It's like saying "I ask me" and "I ask myself." The thing is though, all verbs in English that can do this are already transitive. It's just that in Na'vi some verbs that are even logically transitive (at least in English they are) are intransitive. Such as srung si. in English you can "help" someone or "assist" someone. But in Na'vi I guess it's more like "to do assistance". You can't "do assistance" something like you can "hunt" something. But you can "do assistance" TO something. There aren't many cases of this happening in English. If at all. It would probably have to be relative to another language.

Quote from: Kemaweyan on November 07, 2014, 04:32:04 PM
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on November 07, 2014, 04:22:06 PM
Still there, is there a real difference between "I ask I" or "I ask myself"? The first one is a bit odd, but makes sense in English at least.

Pawl said that with 1st person we should use oe rather than sno. So it should be oe pawm oer (literally I ask to me) rather than oe pawm snor (I ask myself) :)

Right, so this lends even more credibility to my theory here.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Kemaweyan on November 07, 2014, 04:32:04 PM
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on November 07, 2014, 04:22:06 PM
Still there, is there a real difference between "I ask I" or "I ask myself"? The first one is a bit odd, but makes sense in English at least.

Pawl said that with 1st person we should use oe rather than sno. So it should be oe pawm oer (literally I ask to me) rather than oe pawm snor (I ask myself) :)

Which makes sense because the way I have seen sno used is kind of third-personish.

Tirea Aean writes
QuotePretty much that's it. You can't apply a verb on your self if it can't even be applied on anything at all.

It's like saying "I ask me" and "I ask myself." The thing is though, all verbs in English that can do this are already transitive. It's just that in Na'vi some verbs that are even logically transitive (at least in English they are) are intransitive. Such as srung si. in English you can "help" someone or "assist" someone. But in Na'vi I guess it's more like "to do assistance". You can't "do assistance" something like you can "hunt" something. But you can "do assistance" TO something. There aren't many cases of this happening in English. If at all. It would probably have to be relative to another language.

That's the best description of why the 'object' in a sentence with an intransitive verb needs to be in dative case, that I have seen in a while. What is interesting about this, is it is kind of a new way to think about actions that is 'Na'viish'. This is a discipline I need to get better at. It shows how one would think about a sentence like Oe nume oeru. 'I learn on my own', or (less sensible in English) "I learn myself".

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tirea Aean

#25
Thanks for that! I'm glad it makes sense. :)

QuoteOe nume oeru.
I'm not even sure that it makes sense to apply any kind of object to some intransitives. Some intransitive verbs I think are literally incapable of dealing with more than just a subject. IMO nume is such a verb. It doesn't make sense to me to add a dative to this action. If nume is defined as "acquire knowledge or understanding[1]" then it doesn't make sense that there would be a direct or indirect object. How can one "acquire knowledge or understang" something or even "acquire knowledge or understanding" TO something?

edits.

[1]: http://forum.learnnavi.org/language-updates/ordinals-nume/msg586259/#msg586259

Tìtstewan

*Oeri nume oe - As for me, I gain knowledge from sensory input

But this make not much sense, so oe mllte hu Tirea.

-| 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. |-

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Tìtstewan on November 10, 2014, 05:42:03 PM
*Oeri nume oe - As for me, I gain knowledge from sensory input

But this make not much sense, so oe mllte hu Tirea.

And even that seems redundant because the oeri doesn't seem to add anything new to the sentence Oe nume.
EDIT: Nevermind, it does. Since we know that the thing you learn about is in the topic case. But still, this seems weird. But correctly formed by definition and rule.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä


Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tirea Aean

Thats like saying I learn about me. But the other interesting thing is, a topical word also introduces or changes the subject in a discussion. So how do we know it's not this:

A: Oe taron fìtrr. Nga tut? | I hunt today. What about you?
B: Oeri oe nume. As for me, I learn.

Tìtstewan

Hmm, I expected this:
A: Oe taron fìtrr. Nga tut? | I hunt today. What about you?
B: Oeri nume. As for me, (I) learn.


That "oeri oe" is weird.
Example from Horen 7.2.2.2
Poeri uniltìrantokxit tarmok a krr, lam stum nìayfo, slä lu 'a'awa tìketeng natkenong, tsyokxìri ke lu zekwä atsìng ki amrr.
As for her, when she inhabited an avatar, she was almost like them, but there were a few differences, for example, as for her hand there were not four fingers but five.

You would not say:
Poeri poe...

-| 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. |-

Tirea Aean

True. But if you can't say oeri oe nume then how do you said I learn (about) me

Tìtstewan

Oe nume oeteri.
The adposition should eat that topic case. :)

-| 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. |-

Tirea Aean

If we can use teri to say what we learn about, why exists a rule saying put the object of learning in topic? I guess to permit both styles. Hmm

Tìtstewan

#34
That rule stick only if you are using a sentence without adpositions.

Here an official example:
Oel vewng futa ayeveng nivume teri ayewll na'rìngä.
I see to it that the children learn about the forest plants.
http://naviteri.org/2010/09/getting-to-know-you-part-2/

Edit: another example:
Tsatsawlultxari alu SETIkon a2ve, nolume oe nìtxan teri tìtsunslu tìreyä a hifkeymì alahe.
'At the SETIcon II conference I learned a lot about the possibility of life on other worlds.'
http://naviteri.org/2012/07/meetings-waterfalls-and-more/

-| 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. |-

Blue Elf

#35
it's ngaru tut (or ngari). Sources exist. (sorry for OFF) Meh
Quote from: Tirea Aean on November 11, 2014, 09:45:34 AM
A: Oe taron fìtrr. Ngaru tut? | I hunt today. What about you?
B: Oeri oe nume. As for me, I learn.
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tìtstewan

#36
See here at the "Dialogue #5".


E2: beware the edits! :P

-| 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: Blue Elf on November 11, 2014, 01:48:30 PM
it's ngaru tut (or ngari). Sources exist. (sorry for OFF)
Quote from: Tirea Aean on November 11, 2014, 09:45:34 AM
A: Oe taron fìtrr. Ngaru tut? | I hunt today. What about you?
B: Oeri oe nume. As for me, I learn.

I don't agree. There is ngaru in example just because there was dative in previous sentence:

  A: Ngaru lu fpom srak?
  B: Oeru lu fpom. Ngaru tut?


Also we have another example:

  A. Sunu ngaru fkxen srak?
  B. Kezemplltxe, sunu oeru nìtxan.
  A. Vey tut?


Here both words are in nominative.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tìtstewan

Eltur tìtxen seiyi!
I didn't know that file. +1!

*changing my previous post back to the original, but with the correct link*

-| 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 did not know too :) But Google knows ;Dtut site:naviteri.org» - first link)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D