I'm talking to you, Scott Pilgrim!

[Kemaweyan]

I call brother William Annis to the stand.

When did we get this info? I thought the rule had always been that (except for exceptions), the agentive was only used if there was a patient

Nope.  That came up at the Workshop, and was solidly dismissed.  If the verb is transitive and there's an object in the conversation (whether implicit or explicit), then the verb should be treated as fully transitive with transitive syntax for the subject.  Only when the object is specifically suppressed, as in a statement of general capability or action, does a transitive verb subject not take the agentive marking (this pattern is called the "antipassive" in ergative languages).

It has to be ngaru.   I'd normally use oel, but I suppose one could also use oeri.

For the verb, I'd probably go with perlltxe.  There is no such form as polltxe — only plltxe or poltxe.

why oel?

The verb is transitive, and is not announcing a general ability or action but a quite specific instance of speaking.  I really don't see the antipassive structure working here.

Edit: I should add that my personal practice is to hunt down implicit objects in my discourse, and err on the side of letting poor, put-upon transitive verbs keep their transitivity.

Well. Have we any examples of this? As you just said, we have canon example Plltxe nga nìltsan! where transitive verb doesn't keep its transitivity.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

IS is the implied object, as in  Oel plltxe (aylì'ut) nìltsan supposed to be the 'normal' way of saying things (given the supposoed Na`vi tendency to use few words)? Or is this a speaker's choice sort of thing?

'-i without -t' and '-t with out-l' situations are among the most confusing things there are in learning this language.

[Tirea Aean]

IS is the implied object, as in  Oel plltxe (aylì'ut) nìltsan supposed to be the 'normal' way of saying things (given the supposoed Na`vi tendency to use few words)? Or is this a speaker's choice sort of thing?

'-i without -t' and '-t with out-l' situations are among the most confusing things there are in learning this language.

because someone must have told you early on (mistakenly) that they are an unbreakable PAIR.

and wat exactly is NORMAL anyway...

[Kemaweyan]

Yeah, if the object is clear from the context, then we should use agentive:

  Oel fpole' por 'upxaret a poltxe ngal.
  I sent him the message which you said.

Here we must understand that the meaning is Oel fpole' por 'upxaret a tsa'upxaret poltxe ngal, but usually tsa'upxaret is omitted, because it's used second time and completely clear from the context...

However if there is just Poltxe nga without a context, then it should be without -l.

[wm.annis]

Well. Have we any examples of this? As you just said, we have canon example Plltxe nga nìltsan! where transitive verb doesn't keep its transitivity.

Transitivity remains for me the most exasperating corner of Na'vi grammar.  Frommer's statements, combined with his own occasional practice, are self-contradictory.  As long as he allows that there is an antipassive use of transitive verbs (which was reconfirmed at the Workshop, when he clarified a point about the causative), I'm going to continue to err in the direction of transitivity because that makes better grammatical sense with the rules we've got.  Regular use of intransitive marking with transitive verb smells way too Indo-European for me to be comfortable with it at this point.

In an ideal world, Cameron would pay Frommer to go sit on a mountain top and meditate for a week on Na'vi transitivity and clarify things.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

'-i without -t' and '-t with out-l' situations are among the most confusing things there are in learning this language.

because someone must have told you early on (mistakenly) that they are an unbreakable PAIR.

They aren't??  
Hopefully, we will eventually have a fairly systematic way of understanding the situations where they are not used together.

and wat exactly is NORMAL anyway...

Now that is a VERY good question.

As far as an answer goes....(groans)......Let's discuss -l and -t used by themselves instead  
(Seriously, in this context, 'normal' would mean 'most widely accepted usage'.)

[MIPP]

So, as for my sentence, how would it be correct?

[Sireayä mokri]

So, as for my sentence, how would it be correct?

Fìfya:

oe plltxe nìltsan.

[Ngawng]

Scott Pilgrim....is like my favourite movie right now oh my gosh. But yes I agree with "Oe perlltxe ngaru ma Scott Pilgrim", because it's a small sentence and I feel that the meaning can be conveyed without too many noun cases...

Spoiler

Syaw oer Kxangangang, fayfo lu evengan.

Srake kop tsa'evenge lu 'evengan?

Srane.

*zekwä lekxam*

[Tirea Aean]

*zekwä lekxam* = Genius.

[Ngawng]

*zekwä lekxam* = Genius.

8D

[Eyawng te Klltepayu]

*zekwä lekxam*