NN:s intermediate thread

[NeuraltNätverk]

Yeah I don't know how I feel about posting in Nì'aw

Although I did earlier with some success

Eh

I wonder whether we have a term for "according to X"

I'll suggest "nìmlltemì X + hu"

I actually wanted it for a sarcastic expression like "Says you!" ("Nìmlltemì ngahu!") but it could be like "Nìmllte fìpukhu" and so on

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I think "na poltxe X" (or possibly pxel instead of na) would be more appropriate. I'm not sure I like the adposition either in your construction, AFAIK, we've only ever seen them on nouns and neither mllte or nìmllte (which might not exist, nì is only productive on adjectives which mllte isn't) are.

[wm.annis]

I think "na poltxe X" (or possibly pxel instead of na) would be more appropriate.

Well, neither na nor pxel are conjunctions, so that's not really going to work here either.

I wonder whether we have a term for "according to X"

I'll suggest "nìmlltemì X + hu"

The closest expression to this semantically is tì'efumì oeyä In my opinion.  You could just use that, replacing oeyä with X-(y)ä.  I suppose another possibility is säfpìlmì oeyä.

I actually wanted it for a sarcastic expression like "Says you!" ("Nìmlltemì ngahu!") but it could be like "Nìmllte fìpukhu" and so on

"Fìfya plltxe nga!"?

[NeuraltNätverk]

The closest expression to this semantically is tì'efumì oeyä In my opinion.  You could just use that, replacing oeyä with X-(y)ä.

wouldn't this sound weird with an inanimate object for X though

how about X-ism

I was thinking of this today

I just found out that tì- isn't productive in this thread (damn) but isn't this at least plausible: "tìspaw tìngopmì" ("creationism")

how about "creationist"

[wm.annis]

We've heard nothing about -ist or -ism at this point, nor any good models for such things.

[NeuraltNätverk]

well I emailed Paul Frommer earlier tbh we'll see what happens

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I think "na poltxe X" (or possibly pxel instead of na) would be more appropriate.

Well, neither na nor pxel are conjunctions, so that's not really going to work here either.

I keep forgetting this. As I remember it there was some confusion about parts of speech when we first got them. Perhaps "fìfya poltxe X" or "X poltxe a fìfya" (with fìfya embedded in an unspecified matrix clause).

[C'tri Atan'itan]

(with fìfya embedded in an unspecified matrix clause).

/goes back to Beginners and hides under a tskxe.

[NeuraltNätverk]

well I emailed Paul Frommer earlier tbh we'll see what happens

Got a favorable response and he liked the idea of (tì?)reyvi (cell) but he'll be doing shizzle for the next few weeks so it will be a while before he responds to further suggestions I made.

I wonder when it's good to use "ko"

How's this:

"Pelun nga ke fpak ko?" ("Why don't you cut it out?")

[NeuraltNätverk]

One more:

A Ukrainian guy told me: "Nìngay oer nì'ul ftue lu fìkem a plltxe nìNa'vi"

Is it right?

I'm having a hard time parsing the end. "Fìkem a plltxe nìNa'vi?"

What about "Nìngay oer nì'ul ftue lu tìpuslltxe nìNa'vi"?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I don't the gerund would work ma NeyraltNäverk because we've never seen gerunds that have any arguments (like nìna'vi would be, or subjects/objects for that matter) so I'd probably go with the original sentence although I'd use fì'u not fìkem based on Frommer's usage in the "tsun oe ngahu pivängkxo nìna'vi a fì'u prrte' lu oer" sentence (might have got a few word order bits wrong).

[wm.annis]

I don't the gerund would work ma NeyraltNäverk because we've never seen gerunds that have any arguments (like nìna'vi would be, or subjects/objects for that matter)

While gerunds cannot take subjects or objects, they can take adverbs.  For the material for the Good Morning America segment, Frommer produced, koren a'awve tìruseyä 'awsiteng the first rule of living together

although I'd use fì'u not fìkem based on Frommer's usage in the "tsun oe ngahu pivängkxo nìna'vi a fì'u prrte' lu oer" sentence (might have got a few word order bits wrong).

Me, too.  There is no evidence fìkem works this way.

[NeuraltNätverk]

Cool. That being said, you'd accept something like this?

"Nìngay oer nìul ftue lu fwa oe plltxe nìNa'vi"

Also, I'mma try to translate something I saw used as an epigram in a book I'm reading:

"In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy."
"'Ì'amì ke nì'aw fwa tsat awngal ngop, nìwä kop fwa tsat awnga sto skiva'a, raltayìng olo'it awngeyä."

A few notes:

I'm using "ke nì'aw ... nìwä kop" for not "not only ... but also" ... would "slä kop" work as well? How about: "ke X nì'aw, slä Y kop"? There are a bunch of different configurations, I guess, and I'd like to solicit your (alu ayngeyä) opinion on what seems most correct and looks / sounds good.

"raltìng" is not a canonized word. When Frommer gets back to me I'll bring it up to him but, if I can have metaphorical leeway, "law si" might work (compare German erklären ... the inseparable prefix "er-" can be a not like "si" in Na'vi sometimes) or more obviously "tayìng olo'ur awngeyä ralit."

EDIT: For pragmatic reasons, I'd actually like to suggest: "'Ì'amì, ralit olo'ru awngeyä tayìng ke nì'aw fwa tsat awngal ngop, nìwä kop fwa tsat awnga sto skiva'a." because "... sto skiva'a" sounds better at the end.

[Payä Tìrol]

Can you use fwa like that? It appears that it's being used transitively, but it comes from Fì'u a, nominative.

Also, in the first one, can you "possess" an adjective like that, feels weird to me.

[NeuraltNätverk]

Can you use fwa like that? It appears that it's being used transitively, but it comes from Fì'u a, nominative.

Also, in the first one, can you "possess" an adjective like that, feels weird to me.

In which one?

"Nìngay oer nìul ftue lu fwa oe plltxe nìNa'vi"

Whatever other issues this sentence might have, fwa is appropriate. "Fwa ..." is the clause for which oer(u) is the indirect object. It is the agent here.

"'Ì'amì, ralit olo'ru awngeyä tayìng ke nì'aw fwa tsat awngal ngop, nìwä kop fwa tsat awnga sto skiva'a."

the two "Fwa ..." clauses here are what jointly "give meaning to society"; they too are agentive.

[Payä Tìrol]

Fwa in the first is fine, I mean in the second, you marked olo'it accusative, but the subjects appear to be "fwa tsat awngal ngop" and "fwa tsat awnga sto skiva'a", but raltayìng is being used transitively.

[NeuraltNätverk]

What do you recommend?

Think of this English sentence: "I give you an Internet."

"give" has a direct object and an indirect object.

[Payä Tìrol]

My best guess would actually be fwa, but you'd have to change olo'it to olo'ur. Raltìng may actually be better as Tìng Ral, in line with the other 3 Tìng compound verbs, and it would become intransitive. /shrug.

"In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy."

->
"In the end, this-thing-which-is-"not only what we create but also what we destroy" will give meaning to our society.

[NeuraltNätverk]

I see. Do all -tìng verbs necessarily take an indirect object like si verbs?

Anyway in the one that I ultimately settled on: "'Ì'amì, ralit olo'ru awngeyä tayìng ke nì'aw fwa tsat awngal ngop, nìwä kop fwa tsat awnga sto skiva'a." the only apparent fault is that olo'ru should be olo'ur. Thanks for catching that.

[Payä Tìrol]

oeru meuia

Do all -tìng verbs necessarily take an indirect object like si verbs?

I believe so... I think the second half of the verb becomes, in effect, the direct object, sort of like how -si verbs work, but this class only appears to have the 3 examples.