Na'vi Reference Grammar

Started by wm.annis, August 13, 2010, 08:46:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: wm.annis on April 02, 2012, 08:06:25 PM
Quote from: Plumps on April 02, 2012, 01:51:36 PMThis is a bit misleading, I think. Couldn't you say if one element of the compount is non-verbal, everything goes in the verb element (pllngay, pänutìng, kawngsar, emza'u...). If they are two verb elements they simply have to be learned.
By now we have examples, where every verb element carries an infix (kanfpìl, tsunslu, kan'ìn etc.)

That section could definitely be worded better.  It's possible that's been misleading since the October Ultxa, which is a little awkward.

I'm still meditating on how to incorporate the new verb transitivity info, but I hope to have a new version out some time this week.

Did K. Pawl's information really change things that much? Most of it seemed to make common sense nìNa'vi.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

wm.annis

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on April 03, 2012, 02:25:45 AMDid K. Pawl's information really change things that much? Most of it seemed to make common sense nìNa'vi.

The note about how transitivity works across relative clauses was new and useful.  Perhaps common sense, but there is much about Na'vi transitivity that remains vague.  Even small points of clarity deserve attention. :)

wm.annis

Version 1.19 is now out.  It has a lot of smaller changes:

* note temporal use of
* added a section on poetic register
* new adp. sko
* sna- and -tswo compound elements
* clarify infix position in V-V compounds
* krra not krr a
* some detail on relative clauses and transitivity
* rename "antipassive" section to "ambitransitivity," since that's what K Pawl is calling it, and add some more details from blog post (since people are used to the name "antipassive" by now, I leave it in the index, and add a note that it is sometimes called that)
* as always, some more citations

Tirea Aean

is it really snautra stand of trees or is that a typo for snautral stand of trees in the sna- example?

Someone's only just now brought this up. Also, the person asked about plurals in combo with sna.

Blue Elf

#164
Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 24, 2012, 10:03:47 PM
is it really snautra stand of trees or is that a typo for snautral stand of trees in the sna- example?

Someone's only just now brought this up. Also, the person asked about plurals in combo with sna.
it's just typo - see the source: http://naviteri.org/2012/03/spring-vocabulary-part-2/
As for plural - I expect standard behaviour with me-/pxe-/ay- prefixes. Why it should be different?
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


wm.annis

Quote from: Blue Elf on October 25, 2012, 01:13:18 PM
it's just typo

It is indeed.  It will be fixed in the next release.

Seze Mune

Quote from: Blue Elf on October 25, 2012, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 24, 2012, 10:03:47 PM
is it really snautra stand of trees or is that a typo for snautral stand of trees in the sna- example?

Someone's only just now brought this up. Also, the person asked about plurals in combo with sna.
it's just typo - see the source: http://naviteri.org/2012/03/spring-vocabulary-part-2/
As for plural - I expect standard behaviour with me-/pxe-/ay- prefixes. What it should be different?

That's what would think too, but look at this reference from Horen:

5.4.7. Sna-. A shortened form of the noun sna'o group, set, clump, stand, this prefix can be freely
used with living things other than people to indicate a natural grouping, such as snatalioang a
herd of sturmbeest, snautra a stand of trees.


A group of anything should be plural, and the plural of talioang would be salioang, right?  So should a herd of sturmbeest be snasalioang?

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Seze Mune on October 25, 2012, 10:03:39 PM
Quote from: Blue Elf on October 25, 2012, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 24, 2012, 10:03:47 PM
is it really snautra stand of trees or is that a typo for snautral stand of trees in the sna- example?

Someone's only just now brought this up. Also, the person asked about plurals in combo with sna.
it's just typo - see the source: http://naviteri.org/2012/03/spring-vocabulary-part-2/
As for plural - I expect standard behaviour with me-/pxe-/ay- prefixes. What it should be different?

That's what would think too, but look at this reference from Horen:

5.4.7. Sna-. A shortened form of the noun sna'o group, set, clump, stand, this prefix can be freely
used with living things other than people to indicate a natural grouping, such as snatalioang a
herd of sturmbeest, snautra a stand of trees.


A group of anything should be plural, and the plural of talioang would be salioang, right?  So should a herd of sturmbeest be snasalioang?

Apparently not.

Quote from: http://naviteri.org/2012/03/spring-vocabulary-part-2/What's interesting about sna'o is that it has an abbreviated form, sna-, which functions as a noun prefix to indicate a group or collection. With living things other than people, sna- is productive—you can use it to indicate a group of any plant or animal: snanantang 'a pack of viperwolves,' snatalioang 'a herd of sturmbeest,' snautral 'a stand of trees,' etc. These words are not listed in the dictionary.

Those Horen examples came right from the Naviteri post from Pawl.

Seze Mune

So that means it doesn't follow standard plural behavior, then.  Ok.  Got it.  :D

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Seze Mune on October 25, 2012, 10:28:32 PM
So that means it doesn't follow standard plural behavior, then.  Ok.  Got it.  :D

standard plural behaviour of English? No. not necessarily. :)

Blue Elf

Quote from: Seze Mune on October 25, 2012, 10:28:32 PM
So that means it doesn't follow standard plural behavior, then.  Ok.  Got it.  :D
No. We are speaking probably about different things.
Group of X = sna- + X, where X is noun in singular (sna- + talioang = snatalioang, group of sturmbeasts). As sna- do not cause lenition, such ideas as *snasalioang are just wrong.
But when I was speaking about standard behaviour, I was speaking about:
two groups of sturmbeasts = mesnatalioang
three groups of sturmbeasts = pxesnatalioang
more groups of sturmbeasts = aysnatalioang
It should be correct, isn't it?

But maybe I got what you mean - are you trying to say something like "group of two/three/more sturmbeats" ? Well, this is not covered by sna- prefix....
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Seze Mune

#171
Quote from: Blue Elf on October 26, 2012, 05:54:27 AM
Quote from: Seze Mune on October 25, 2012, 10:28:32 PM
So that means it doesn't follow standard plural behavior, then.  Ok.  Got it.  :D
No. We are speaking probably about different things.
Group of X = sna- + X, where X is noun in singular (sna- + talioang = snatalioang, group of sturmbeasts). As sna- do not cause lenition, such ideas as *snasalioang are just wrong.
But when I was speaking about standard behaviour, I was speaking about:
two groups of sturmbeasts = mesnatalioang
three groups of sturmbeasts = pxesnatalioang
more groups of sturmbeasts = aysnatalioang
It should be correct, isn't it?

But maybe I got what you mean - are you trying to say something like "group of two/three/more sturmbeats" ? Well, this is not covered by sna- prefix....

You are right that sna- doesn't cause lenition.  I was thinking that the optional plurals of talioang was either aytalioang or salioang without the 'ay'.  Sort of like tawtute and sawtute. I can see where it might be confusing.

A family group of something like yerik might be only two to four animals, and not what you'd think of as a normal herd of bison or a flock of crows which is what I thought sna- was supposed to mean.  If you had a raptor like an eagle or a predator like a toruk, you would never see them in anything but a very, very small number.  I suppose you could say 'small group' but the only word we have for small is hì'i, which means small in size and not in quantity.  You couldn't say hol snatoruk, because while hol means few, that would mean 'few groups of toruk' which doesn't mean a small group, singular.  One workaround is snatoruktsyìp which is based on something like:

snatanhìtsyìp: [sna.tan."hI.>tsjIp] PF n. star cluster (c.w. from sna'o group and tanhì(tsyip) star)

Or perhaps snasoaia torukä meaning a small family group of (whatever animal). Or would soruk nìsoaia be more nìNa'vi?  Or doesn't it even matter?

I know, I know....I ask too many questions!  But Na'vi is so much fun to play with!   ;D

EDIT:

snatoruk ahìm  or would that imply a small quantity of groups of soruk?

Blue Elf

HRH, your way of thinking is very interesting, but I got what you are trying. Sna- really doesn't help here, because something a little different is needed here - and it is really simple.

sna'o mesorukä - group of two toruks
sna'o pxesalioangä - group of three sturmbeasts

Although PF has given us the only example "Ayskxe a mì sasna'o ku'up lu nìtxan", I expect sna'o can be used this way.
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

I like that. It is very unambiguous. In looking carefully at sna-, the group size it can represent is not defined, and in fact, K. Pawl describes this prefix as 'freely useable' in the context it is for. The important part is that by itself, either sna'o or sna- give no clue to the group size represented. So, if the size of the group is important in the conversation, or not understood by context, then additional verbiage is needed to establish the number of critters/plants you are talking about (the above examples are particularly elegant IMHO).

If the discussion is about a group of plants/animals that is definable by me+ or pxe+, the use of sna- is still appropriate if the exact number of plants/animals is unimportant to the conversation. This could useful, but potentially confusing if the group is abnormally large or small fir its species.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Blue Elf

Agree. sna- is for groups of unidentified size, while sna'o allows you to say exact size. Not just me+/pxe+, but any number.
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


wm.annis

Update 1.20.  In addition to various small cosmetic and spelling changes,

* new meaning of ìlä
* akum/kuma with nìftxan and fìtxan
* general condition
* clearer explanation of srake
* note pronunciation of säpoli in casual conversation
* added "Affect and Evidence" section
* say more about pronoun genitive morphology

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä


Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tanri

Looking at example in Conditions (6.19.5), should it be "Txo tsive'a ayngal keyeyit, rutxe oeru piveng", kefyak?
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

Tirea Aean

Kosman! Oh by the way, ma wm.annis I credited you for creating this document, and updated the version and date on the Media page of LearnNavi. It was only since this update that I happened to notice that no author or version was there. :)

wm.annis

Quote from: Tanri on November 30, 2012, 05:22:29 PM
Looking at example in Conditions (6.19.5), should it be "Txo tsive'a ayngal keyeyit, rutxe oeru piveng", kefyak?

The form keyeyt is exactly what Karyu Pawl produced.  I don't mess with his usage. :)  But I agree there is still a little uncertainty around the declension of nouns ending in diphthongs.