Na'vi Style

[wm.annis]

It's interesting to me how many people have internalized a particular word order of Frommer's with modals:

  modal - subject - (stuff) - verb - (stuff)

Frommer's:
  Tsun oe ngahu nìNa'vi pivängkxo
  Txo new nga rivey
  zene oe 'awsiteng tìkangkem sivi fohu
  new oe pivlltxe ayngaru san kaltxì sìk
  slä nì'i'a tsun oe pivlltxe san...

From the Spam in Na'vi thread:
  Keye'ungìri nìlaw tsun fko sivar (mine)
  Pefnetìsraw tsun oe tìving
  zene oe nivume teri horen nìlaw
  kxawm tsun fko 'awa trr tsat stivawm

From the http://forum.learnnavi.org/navi-niaw/tipangkxo-king/ (only the last few pages)
  zenke fo sutet iveyk.
  Txo new oeng tsun pivängkxo nìNa'vi (wou! - even with the small error)
  Fmoli oel ngivop (again, grammar error, but the principle is the same...)

Oeri eltur tìtxen si nì'aw.

[Kemaweyan]

Yeah, I like it too Some more examples from Plltxe nìNa'vi:

  tse txo new fko stivawm nìmun hapxìt ultxayä a ...
  Ngian set new oe pivam ngaru san ...
  Rutxe piveng oer futa lam ngar fwa ftxey zene oe pivlltxe san ...

[Kì'eyawn]

Personally, i tend to do modal — subject — verb – (stuff), but i know i didn't start out this way.  I originally had a severe hang-up about not splitting the "verb phrase," so i started out always putting the modal and verb right next to each other, but the dominant style (the one you point out) influenced me to change my own style.

Srane, tsaw eltur tìtxen si   

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Is there some sort of problem or issue with this practice, or is this just an observation? It seems to be that these examples represent useful constructions.

[Plumps]

I think it's just supposed to be an observation that even with relative free word order that we have people tend to take over a particular pattern Psychologically and sociolocically this is interesting, I guess

I also prefer the modal – subject – verb pattern even if it is just so I don't have the feeling I would translate word-by-word from English or my mother tongue  although there are instances in speaking where I would step away from it. I for my part have a hard time pronouncing tsun nga clearly enough and I tend to think that there will be some kind of eclipse/eliding (similar to tìng mikyun and tìng nari), don't you think?

[Muzer]

I often (not always) just go with the English word order (subject modal verb stuff)... but I've learnt that maybe that wasn't a good plan, as I occasionally get confused when I'm speaking in English (usually to myself, thankfully )... by saying "I need to d<iv>o this" for example

[Nyx]

That is interesting. And I noticed I do it too in order to avoid word orders I'm used to (as some of you have mentioned), but it's weird how we all go for the same thing then. It's like there's a tiny group of people who only talk to each other

[wm.annis]

That is interesting. And I noticed I do it too in order to avoid word orders I'm used to (as some of you have mentioned), but it's weird how we all go for the same thing then.

Well, we don't all go for the same thing.  There are plenty of people who stick resolutely with subject - modal - verb, or mix several orders.  I just found it interesting that one of the earliest patterns sanctioned by Frommer (Dec 12 2009, Dec 23 2009) has spread out, especially considering how many people who use it have native languages in which this pattern would be bizarre.

Beginners materials should probably mention this pattern, along with Frommer's very common adjective - lu - adverb.

It's like there's a tiny group of people who only talk to each other

The very definition of a language community. 

[Sireayä mokri]

What's really interesting to me is that I always use "modal - subject - stuff - verb", but never actually thought that I "took" it from somewhere, it just always seemed convenient to me. Something subconscious, I guess

Also, I like putting question word as second of third word in a sentence. Just like in "fìswiräti ngal pelun molunge fìtseng".

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Also, I like putting question word as second of third word in a sentence. Just like in "fìswiräti ngal pelun molunge fìtseng".

That is kind of bizarre! You might elaborate on why you like doing this.

The modal-subject-verb construction is useful because sometimes doing it subject-modal-verb just 'doesn't seem to cut it' (to use an idiom!) It is in keeping with the 'free word order' idea. But as has been discussed many times in these forums before, you shouldn't just use free word order because you can. Use it to enhance the meaning of the sentence.

Oel ngati pelun kameie 

[Nyx]

Also, I like putting question word as second of third word in a sentence. Just like in "fìswiräti ngal pelun molunge fìtseng".

Just ignore me if this is too far from the topic, but I was wondering, would the emphasis of a question like that be pointed out by the tone or could the placement of "pelun" be a pointer? To clarify, I'm talking about the difference between "fìswiräti ngal pelun molunge fìtseng" and "fìswiräti ngal pelun molunge fìtseng"

Well, we don't all go for the same thing.

No, of course, I should've said "a lot" or something. I just shouldn't post on a language forum when I just woke up

[MIPP]

That is interesting. And I noticed I do it too in order to avoid word orders I'm used to (as some of you have mentioned), but it's weird how we all go for the same thing then.

Well, we don't all go for the same thing.  There are plenty of people who stick resolutely with subject - modal - verb, or mix several orders.  I just found it interesting that one of the earliest patterns sanctioned by Frommer (Dec 12 2009, Dec 23 2009) has spread out, especially considering how many people who use it have native languages in which this pattern would be bizarre.

Beginners materials should probably mention this pattern, along with Frommer's very common adjective - lu - adverb.

It's like there's a tiny group of people who only talk to each other

The very definition of a language community. 

I actually did it in my document "Na'vi for begginners" which you may find here.
Any suggestion is welcome 

[wm.annis]

Also, I like putting question word as second of third word in a sentence. Just like in "fìswiräti ngal pelun molunge fìtseng".

That is kind of bizarre! You might elaborate on why you like doing this.

It's not too bizarre, actually.  The line he quotes in Na'vi is from the from the film, so there's good precedent for it.

Some languages require you to put the question word into whatever slot it would fit into as a statement.  So, these languages don't permit you "whom did you see?" but require "you saw whom?"  In words with free constituent order, the question word can float around.  That said, it is cross-linguistically very common for question words to migrate to the start of an utterance.

['Oma Tirea]

Hmmm... eltur tìtxen si...

Recently I have been thinking about word order and how they might roughly translate in terms of stress patterns to English, for example:

• Eywal stolawm ngati: Eywa has heard you.
• Eywal ngati stolawm: Eywa has heard you.
• Stolawm Eywal ngati: Eywa has heard you.
• Ngati Eywal stolawm: Eywa has heard you.
• Stolawm ngati Eywal: Eywa has heard you.
• Ngati stolawm Eywal: Eywa has heard you.

You bring up an interesting case for modals, ma wm.annis.  Again I can see a possible relation:

• Eywa tsolun stivawm ngati: EYWA has been able to hear you.
• Eywa tsolun ngati stivawm: EYWA has been able to hear you.
• Eywa stivawm tsolun ngati: EYWA has been able to hear you.
• Eywa ngati tsolun stivawm: EYWA has been able to hear you.
• Eywa stivawm ngati tsolun: EYWA has been able to hear you.
• Eywa ngati stivawm tsolun: EYWA has been able to hear you.
• Tsolun Eywa stivawm ngati: Eywa HAS BEEN ABLE to hear you.
• Tsolun Eywa ngati stivawm: Eywa HAS BEEN ABLE to hear you.
• Tsolun stivawm Eywa ngati: Eywa HAS BEEN ABLE to hear you.
• Tsolun ngati Eywa stivawm: Eywa HAS BEEN ABLE to hear you.
• Tsolun stivawm ngati Eywa: Eywa HAS BEEN ABLE to hear you.
• Tsolun ngati stivawm Eywa: Eywa HAS BEEN ABLE to hear you.
• Stivawm Eywa tsolun ngati: Eywa has been able TO HEAR you.
• Stivawm Eywa ngati tsolun: Eywa has been able TO HEAR you.
• Stivawm tsolun Eywa ngati: Eywa has been able TO HEAR you.
• Stivawm ngati Eywa tsolun: Eywa has been able TO HEAR you.
• Stivawm tsolun ngati Eywa: Eywa has been able TO HEAR you.
• Stivawm ngati tsolun Eywa: Eywa has been able TO HEAR you.
• Ngati Eywa tsolun stivawm: Eywa has been able to hear YOU.
• Ngati Eywa stivawm tsolun: Eywa has been able to hear YOU.
• Ngati tsolun Eywa stivawm: Eywa has been able to hear YOU.
• Ngati stivawm Eywa tsolun: Eywa has been able to hear YOU.
• Ngati tsolun stivawm Eywa: Eywa has been able to hear YOU.
• Ngati stivawm tsolun Eywa: Eywa has been able to hear YOU.

As for question words, AFAIK, "Srak(e)" must go on either end of the sentence, and I imagine the other question words, as wm.annis kinda said, migrate to either end of the sentence, depending on what attitude fko wants to convey.

Next paradigm:

• Oe lu pesu: Who am I?
• Oe pesu lu: Who am I?
• Lu oe pesu: Who am I?
• Lu pesu oe: Who am I?
• Pesu oe lu: Who am I?
• Pesu lu oe: Who am I?

Now ask yourself this: how would you commonly stress the words in English?  Perhaps you will find the reason for why Modal-Subject-...-Verb-... is fairly common.

[Sireayä mokri]

It's not too bizarre, actually.  The line he quotes in Na'vi is from the from the film, so there's good precedent for it.

Yes, that's exactly the reason. I mean, the movie kind of shows us how native speakers of the language would say it. And even though we have free word order, if natives prefer to say it one particular way, I would do the same.

[wm.annis]

Recently I have been thinking about word order and how they might roughly translate in terms of stress patterns to English, for example:

• Eywal stolawm ngati: Eywa has heard you.
• Eywal ngati stolawm: Eywa has heard you.
• Stolawm Eywal ngati: Eywa has heard you.

While I agree with the background premise of this, I think you're also overstating the phrase-initial position quite a lot.  And there another, much deeper issue this raises as well.

Given that the topical case in prose always comes at the start of the clause (or at least, right after any conjunction), I think we should be very careful about interpreting any emphasis¹ or stress for words at the start of the clause.  As Fommer has said, topics are mostly for definite noun phrases, that is, old information already part of the discourse.  That is not usually going to be emphasized.

I'm not sure how to interpret the strength of your markup, but based on Frommer's "punch" statement, I think we should interpret the end of clauses as the site of most emphasis.  This would explain how often adverbs of degree and asseveration (nìtxan, nìngay) land there.  Most of the time a single clause is not going to have multiple things to emphasize, so that leaves the ordering of the rest of the clause up to other considerations than emphasis.

The deeper concern here is — what if nothing is emphasized?  Unless we want to imagine the Na'vi are like Frank Herbert's Bene Gesserit, where the subtlest shading of wording conveys a world of meaning, we have to assume that much of the time there's no particular emphasis on any element of a clause.  Rather, the whole thing is taken to be the most important thing about the message.  Constantly high information density would be pretty unnatural.  (It sounds exhausting.)

So, for the time being, I see the modal - subject - (stuff) - verb phrasing as mostly a stylistic matter.

_____
¹I really hate the word "emphasis" — it means way too many things — but it'll do for now.

['Oma Tirea]

I'm not sure how to interpret the strength of your markup...

To clarify:

Stress level 1
Stress level 2
Stress level 3
STRESS LEVEL 4

I have probably gone a tad overboard here....

The deeper concern here is — what if nothing is emphasized?  Unless we want to imagine the Na'vi are like Frank Herbert's Bene Gesserit, where the subtlest shading of wording conveys a world of meaning, we have to assume that much of the time there's no particular emphasis on any element of a clause.  Rather, the whole thing is taken to be the most important thing about the message.  Constantly high information density would be pretty unnatural.  (It sounds exhausting.)

A good question, and besides, my three paradigms were only sketches.  I thought about this too, and I'm not really too sure about it

[Ftiafpi]

I've personally considered that the only truly stressed portion to be the end of clause position. But, I've also figured that you can create sub-stresses using things such as pauses for emphasis (seen in the film), slight changes in word order, or perhaps other ways (raised voice?). But, those sub-stresses (if even possible) are more just ways to make the clause easier to digest and the only true way to emphasize a word was the aforementioned end of clause position.

As for the word order preference I think it's two-fold. First, it's "canonical" in that Frommer used it a lot at first so a lot of people adopted it early on and thus it got ingrained in our head that Na'vi uses modal-subject-stuff-verb-stuff as the "standard" form. The other side of it is that because people got used to it they developed phrase recognition for that order. I personally find that when I'm speaking a sentence with no prior preparation I will either do the English subject-verb-object (usually for very complex or very simple sentences) or the modal-subject-stuff-verb-stuff form for all others. I also notice that whenever I use a modal verb in spoken Na'vi I almost always go to the modal-subject-etc. form. I guess it's just what I've gotten used to.

Conversely, when I'm listening to spoken Na'vi I find it significantly easier to work out the meaning if it's either in an English word order or in the modal-subject-etc. form. Again, I'm assuming this is just the pattern recognition my brain has fallen into when speaking/listening to Na'vi.