New York Times Article Audio

[Keylstxatsmen]

Has anyone been able to decifer the first sentence in the sample conversation given by Dr. Frommer in the audio from this article?  I can pick out the words I know and can see from the translation, but someone with a better ear might be able to transcribe the rest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06FOB-onlanguage-t.html

Oe   hutxewì       trr'am      na'rìngmi      tarmok,
I   with-Txewì   yesterday?  fores-in went<PST><IMP>

[sorey] a      tse'a  [tuteta]  tsawl   fra'u     to   mì sìrey.
?    that    see    Trapper?  big  everthing than in  life (from tìrey with lenition)

Yesterday I was with Txewì in the forest and we saw the biggest Trapper (carn. plant) I've ever seen.

-Keyl

[omängum fra'uti]

First sentence, I'd say it starts with Oel, and hu is a preposition (When it comes before) so it's not attached to Txewì
It sounds like na'rìng (Which he seemed to mispronounce as na'ring) ends with a consonant.  Possibly a -r (as a form of the topic marker?) or -t (Would the accusative of going be the destination?)

Whatever the suffix on trr is seems like it needs to either be an adposition or something that forms an adjective.  The latter seems like it should be more likely, because just "day" with an adposition doesn't seem like it would clear anything up.  (On a day???)

tuteta sounds more like tute-ta to me, but that doesn't make much sense.  Tutet a-tsawl maybe makes sense.  (If that is the case, then yay for the first case of ambiguous homophones in Na'vi )

One thing that will make understanding this difficult is he uses a superlative (Biggest) in the English translation of it, and we don't know how to make superlatives.  For example, *tsawl-fra (Big-all) sounds like it could itself be a superlative form of tsawl, and I don't hear a 'u for fra'u.

Sorey a tse'a I think is wrong, if you read it instead as...
Tsore'a [sie] [tute]-t a-*tsawl-fra to mì sìrey

Of note, spe'etu is captive, and while I don't hear a /p/ in there, it's possible trapper plant (With trap a synonym of capture).  *s(p?)e'tute - capture-person = trapper plant?  Still not sure I like that, though.

[omängum fra'uti]

To continue:

Lu fo lehrrap
Be they dangerous

Tsun tute(t?) tspivang [ko]
Cam person(-ACC?) kill-SBJ ?
It's hard to tell if it us tute-tsp or tutet-tsp when he says it, since the "t" would end up merging in Na'vi pronunciation.  It wouldn't make sense without it. (Person can?  Person kill?)

Oe(l?) omum.
1(-ERG?) know
Hard to tell if there's an /l/ slipped in there.  It's barely possible to even tell there's a seperate oe and om.

Nari sole(i)i ayoe ? tìkin nìhawng livok
Eye make-PFV-LAUD 1-PL-EXCL ? need excessive close-SBJ
I'm not very confident on this one, particularly the ? which is a long "f" sound.  The livok has me confused as well, because "lok" is an adjective in our list.

[Keylstxatsmen]

Arayo, ma omängum fra'uti.  Ngayä mikyun txan sìltsan lu! 

Theories of mine before I start listening to it again:

1. trr'am  or trram or whatever it is means yesterday, and is a combination of trr and 'ìm (back).

2.  ko is a particle that means roughly the same as the よ (yo) particle in Japanese.  In this case being like a reinforcement of what the speaker is saying, i.e. "Don't you know that!"

Here is what wikipedia says for the last two sentences:

"We(excl) were careful not to get too close."

    nari+si    ay-oe    fte-ke    nì-hawng    l‹iv›ok
    eye+make    pl-I[intr]    so_that-not    adv-excessive    close‹sjv›

Tsun tutet tspivang ko.

"They can kill a person, you know."

    tsun    tute-t    tsp‹iv›ang    ko
    be_able    person-acc    kill‹sjv›     ?

-Keyl

[omängum fra'uti]

Ah, yeah that makes more sense for the last part.  I think the /i/ in si being mostly lost in the vowel cluster is what threw me off.

[Keylstxatsmen]

Listened to it some more, and I think you are correct this is definately what I'm hearing:

Oel hu txewì trram na'rìng-it t-arm-ok.
Tsore'a sie'tute-t a tsawl frato mì sìrey.

The fact that oe has the ERG -l, makes me think that tok is a transitive verb.  No other explaination really, and that plus an obvious -i sound after na'rìng which must be -it blending in with the t in tarmok.

Frato seems pretty interesting as "than every/all" using the comparative mark.  I could see interesting uses combined with what we already know tsawl fito bigger than this, ftue tsato easier that that.

Also that the second park of trram is the same as the past tense infix is interesting as well, sinse the gloss we are given is "yesterday".

We are dealing with a language created by one human hear, Dr Frommer.  It's probably going to make more sense than not.  And like childern, we won't know the parts of the language that are irregular intil were are told by someone who knows better.  It's a fun archelogical game, although we can actually here people speak it, which is so much more satisfying than other ancient langauges I have studied.

Or should I say: Ayli'u Na'viyä leprrte' ayli'uto tawtuteyä akerusey lu nìtxan.
The words of the Na'vi are much more pleasing than the words of dead Sky-People.

-Keyl

[Taronyu]

One thing that will make understanding this difficult is he uses a superlative (Biggest) in the English translation of it, and we don't know how to make superlatives.  For example, *tsawl-fra (Big-all) sounds like it could itself be a superlative form of tsawl, and I don't hear a 'u for fra'u.

This is only speculation, but I think that there will be such a superlative-maker. I derived a comparative maker *nul from nulkrr - longer. Granted, the accuracy of this is very, very questionable. But I would be less surprised to find a superlative marker, now.