“not always”

Started by Plumps, April 09, 2012, 12:53:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plumps

Okay, I stumbled upon a problem in translation, wasn't sure how to handle it and wanted to ask what you think...

How do we translate "not always", e.g. I am not always here.
First I thought, it's just

     *oel ke tok fìtsengit frakrr

But then I was reminded of the sentence "not everyone understood" as ke frapo ke tslolam.

So, it has to be

     oel ke fìtsengit ke frakrr, right?

Btw, why is it ke and not kea? Isn't fra- just a prefix for normal nouns?

wm.annis

Quote from: Plumps on April 09, 2012, 12:53:28 PMSo, it has to be

     oel ke tok fìtsengit ke frakrr, right?

I believe so.

QuoteBtw, why is it ke and not kea? Isn't fra- just a prefix for normal nouns?

Kea is indeed a negative, but more importantly it is a quantifier — it states an amount, namely "none."  Since fra- is also a quantifier, it doesn't especially make sense for them to go together.  Could you pair German keine with alle, viele, etc.?

Kemaweyan

#2
Quote from: wm.annis on April 09, 2012, 03:33:28 PM
Quote from: Plumps on April 09, 2012, 12:53:28 PMSo, it has to be

     oel ke tok fìtsengit ke frakrr, right?

I believe so.

Oe ke mllte :) There is double negation in Russian and it would be

  oel ke tok fìtsengit ke frakrr

Also we could say this sentence as

  oel tok fìtsengit, slä ke frakrr

I understand the meaning of "not always" so. And if double negation in Na'vi is the same as double negation in Russian, then the sentence "I'm here not always" would be

  oel tok fìtsengit ke frakrr

No negative words (except verbs) change the meaning of the sentence to negative. Therefore we should use ke with verbs in negative sentences even if there are a lot of negative words:

  kawtul kawkrr kekem ke si

The meaning is "does not", so use ke.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Plumps

Quote from: wm.annis on April 09, 2012, 03:33:28 PM
Kea is indeed a negative, but more importantly it is a quantifier — it states an amount, namely "none."  Since fra- is also a quantifier, it doesn't especially make sense for them to go together.  Could you pair German keine with alle, viele, etc.?
Hm, no ... but we're talking about Na'vi here ;D That's why I asked :P
On the other hand, we don't usually say "this my house" (,,dieses mein Haus") ... yet, we can say fìkelku oeyä in Na'vi ;) but I guess, these don't count as quantifier, so it's another matter. :)



Quote from: Kemaweyan on April 09, 2012, 04:05:29 PM
...

No negative words (except verbs) change the meaning of the sentence to negative. Therefore we should use ke with verbs in negative sentences even if there are a lot of negative words:

  ...
Ma Kem, how do you explain ke frapo ke tslolam then? This is an official sentence.

Tanri

#4
The catch is in the definition of "frakrr" - although it looks like a noun, it is an adverb. So "ke frakrr" is grammatically correct.

But the requirement of double negative confuses me a little. I know that negative verb is required when the subject/object is negated, or there is a negative adverb:
Oel ke tse'a kea ikranit. - I see no ikran.
Kea tsafneioang ke tsun fkeytivok. - None of that kind of animal can exist.
Po ke tayätxaw kawkrr. - He will never return.
Kawtul ke terok fìtsengit. - Nobody is here.
These kinds of multiple negations are consistent with negation principles in Czech language, which uses multiple negations natively.
However, the "I am not always here" sentence is translated in Czech exactly as "Oel ke tok fìtsengit frakrr", because the only negated part of the sentence is the verb. It corresponds with slightly changed word order in English - "I am not here always".

Ma Kemaweyan, if you say "меня здесь нет всегда", is the negative particle related to verb (меня здесь нет всегда) or to the adverb (меня здесь нет всегда)?
Czech language negates only the verb ("Já tady nejsem pořád"), I don't believe that Russian can be so different.

Ma Plumps, ke frapo ke tslolam is an example of double negation triggered by negated subject (ke frapo).
The difference between double negation in Slavic languages and Na'vi is only in what kind of negated subject triggers the double negation. This particular example (ke frapo ke tslolam) is single negated in Czech language, but "kawtu ke tslolam" is double negated.
It is clear that Na'vi language don't distinguishes between negative subjects, and apply the double negation to all of them.

Back to the "I am not always here", how can be "Oel ke tok fìtsengit frakrr" incorrect, if it is only a negated version of "Oel tok fìtsengit frakrr"?
If I negate the verb, the adverbs remain the same, kefyak?
As in the sentence "Oel tamok tsatsengit trram" - "I was there yesterday", negated to "Oel ke tamok tsatsengit trram" - "I was not there yesterday", not into *"Oel ke tamok tsatsengit ke trram".
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

wm.annis

With the phrase ke frakrr it's important to note that it's the fra- element that is being negated, not a noun.  Our example from this comes from Pawl himself, who corrected someone's statement at the October 2010 Ultxa from ke frapo tslolam to ke frapo ke tslolam (wiki notes).

Kemaweyan

Quote from: Plumps on April 09, 2012, 04:26:57 PM
Ma Kem, how do you explain ke frapo ke tslolam then? This is an official sentence.

I don't understand it. It's not a double negation in general sense. Probably there is some another rule in Na'vi, not double negation as in other languages.

However the meaning of this sentence in my understanding is almost same as ke frapo tslolam. "Ke frapo" mean "not all", so it is a part. And there is another part - who understood, right? So if one part (ke frapo) "ke tslolam", then another part (also ke frapo) - "tslolam", kefyak? So the meaning of ke frapo ke tslolam is equal to ke frapo tslolam in my understanding. But if we're talking about "understanding" (it's an aim - to understand), not about "not understanding", then we should say who understand. We understand, but not all - ke frapo tslolam. This is correct in languages with double negation.

Quote from: wm.annis on April 09, 2012, 05:23:49 PM
With the phrase ke frakrr it's important to note that it's the fra- element that is being negated, not a noun.  Our example from this comes from Pawl himself, who corrected someone's statement at the October 2010 Ultxa from ke frapo tslolam to ke frapo ke tslolam (wiki notes).

I remember it. But ke with a verb makes the sentence negative, but I don't think that it's correct... At least if there is true double negation in Na'vi.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tanri

#7
Quote from: wm.annis on April 09, 2012, 05:23:49 PM
With the phrase ke frakrr it's important to note that it's the fra- element that is being negated, not a noun.  Our example from this comes from Pawl himself, who corrected someone's statement at the October 2010 Ultxa from ke frapo tslolam to ke frapo ke tslolam (wiki notes).
Oh! This explains a lot!
Then (ke fra)po cannot be a negative pronoun, as known to double-negation languages, thus cannot trigger double negation.
With this in mind, "ke frapo ke tslolam" looks weird, although canonised.
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

Plumps

Who would have thought that this question would spawn such a discussion :)

Quote from: Kemaweyan on April 09, 2012, 05:29:58 PMI remember it. But ke with a verb makes the sentence negative, but I don't think that it's correct... At least if there is true double negation in Na'vi.

I think I understand what you mean with 'parts'...

The thing here though is that it depends on which part of the sentence you want to negate. Same as you can say
     1) ke tse'a oel smarit "I don't see the prey"
but
     2) ke tse'a oel kea smarit "I see no prey"

In 1) you negate the verb, therefore no double negation is required. In 2) you negate the object (thing/person), therefore double negation is required.

The same holds true for ke frapo ke tslolam. Here you negate a person (not everyone) which resembles kea smar from above. If you said frapo ke tslolam it would mean "everyone didn't understand" negating the verb.

In the same vain, I think, is Tanri's example very interesting of oel ke tarmok tsatsengit ke trram ... I would understand this as "I was there not yesterday..." (negating yesterday) and expecting a "... but a week ago" or something like that following it.

Blue Elf

I must say, that ke frapo ke tslolam was not understandable for me too...
Tanri's explanation was clear to me, but this:
Quote from: Tanri on April 09, 2012, 05:51:21 PM
Quote from: wm.annis on April 09, 2012, 05:23:49 PM
With the phrase ke frakrr it's important to note that it's the fra- element that is being negated, not a noun.  Our example from this comes from Pawl himself, who corrected someone's statement at the October 2010 Ultxa from ke frapo tslolam to ke frapo ke tslolam (wiki notes).
Oh! This explains a lot!
Then (ke fra)po cannot be a negative pronoun, as known to double-negation languages, thus cannot trigger double negation.
With this in mind, "ke frapo ke tslolam" looks weird, although canonised.
returns me back to the beginning. So, what about to summarize all about negation in Na'vi? AFAIK:
1/ to turn sentence into negative, we always negate verb with ke (or rä'ä for commands)
2/ if some negative word (noun, pronoun) is used in the sentence, verb must be negated as well (because of multiple negation)
3/ if fra- word is negated, situation is unclear (as ke negates fra-, not attached word)
Something else?
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tanri

Ngaru tìyawr, ma Blue Elf.
With "ke fra.." words, situation is unclear in Na'vi, or, precisely, there are two opposite ideas.

1) this words are treated like regular negative pronouns (e.g. kawtu), and triggers double negation.
This is what I see in the example from Karyu Pawl: "ke frapo ke tslolam", but natively multiple-negating languages don't do that.

2) this words are looked at the same way as in another multiple-negating languages, and "ke fra.." do not triggers double negation.
In this case the "ke frapo ke tslolam" can't be correct.

I am afraid that this can solve only one person, none of us. ;)
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

Eana Unil

Isn't it already solved because Karyu Pawl himself made "ke frapo ke tslolam" out of "ke frapo tslolam" and thus made it official part of the canon?  :-\

Tanri

If it is true, it makes Na'vi double negation very weird and limiting the possible meanings, because in double negating languages are BOTH of this sentences correct (and different in meaning):
ke frapo ke tslolam - literally "not everyone not understood" (majority of people not understood, but some yes)
ke frapo tslolam - literally "not everyone understood" (majority of people did understood, but some not)

Quote from: Kemaweyan on April 09, 2012, 05:29:58 PM
Quote from: Plumps on April 09, 2012, 04:26:57 PM
Ma Kem, how do you explain ke frapo ke tslolam then? This is an official sentence.
I don't understand it. It's not a double negation in general sense. Probably there is some another rule in Na'vi, not double negation as in other languages.
However the meaning of this sentence in my understanding is almost same as ke frapo tslolam. "Ke frapo" mean "not all", so it is a part. And there is another part - who understood, right? So if one part (ke frapo) "ke tslolam", then another part (also ke frapo) - "tslolam", kefyak? So the meaning of ke frapo ke tslolam is equal to ke frapo tslolam in my understanding. But if we're talking about "understanding" (it's an aim - to understand), not about "not understanding", then we should say who understand. We understand, but not all - ke frapo tslolam. This is correct in languages with double negation.
As Kemaweyan said, maybe Na'vi negates unlike other languages.
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

wm.annis

#13
Quote from: Tanri on April 10, 2012, 06:29:43 AM
If it is true, it makes Na'vi double negation very weird and limiting the possible meanings, because in double negating languages are BOTH of this sentences correct (and different in meaning):
ke frapo ke tslolam - literally "not everyone not understood" (majority of people not understood, but some yes)
ke frapo tslolam - literally "not everyone understood" (majority of people did understood, but some not)

We have no reason at all to believe the second example is correct.  It was explicitly corrected by Frommer.

It is important to understand that in human languages there are at least two kinds of "double" negation.  There is negative spread which we are all familiar with in languages like Spanish and Russian, where the negative feature is "spread" out over all the indefinite expressions that fall within negative scope, "ne znayu nechivo", "I don't know nothing."  But another system is negative doubling, where the fundamental negative particle will show up whenever there is any sort of negative expression in the clause.  Some languages, just to be confusing, mix negative spread and negative doubling features.  Na'vi is apparently one such language.  So is Afrikaans,

   Nie alle bestuurders sal dit in die stad waag nie
   Not all drivers will this in the city dare not
   Not all drivers will dare this in the city.

So, you can either think of ke fra- as a single unit, like kea, and assume negative spread is in effect, or assume Na'vi has (as yet not fully described) negative doubling.  What is indisputable is that ke frapo ke tslolam is 100% correct.  I also think Plumps should mail Pawl his ke frakrr example for a judgement. :)

Blue Elf

Quote from: wm.annis on April 10, 2012, 07:46:22 AM
So, you can either think of ke fra- as a single unit, like kea, and assume negative spread is in effect, or assume Na'vi has (as yet not fully described) negative doubling.  What is indisputable is that ke frapo ke tslolam is 100% correct.  I also think Plumps should mail Pawl his ke frakrr example for a judgement. :)
It would be extremely useful to see Paul's answer. Plumps, definitely ask him [/lenomum]
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Plumps

Quote from: Blue Elf on April 10, 2012, 02:17:15 PM
Quote from: wm.annis on April 10, 2012, 07:46:22 AM
So, you can either think of ke fra- as a single unit, like kea, and assume negative spread is in effect, or assume Na'vi has (as yet not fully described) negative doubling.  What is indisputable is that ke frapo ke tslolam is 100% correct.  I also think Plumps should mail Pawl his ke frakrr example for a judgement. :)
It would be extremely useful to see Paul's answer. Plumps, definitely ask him [/lenomum]

William-ìl aylut poltxe, tsakem soli oe ;)
William said it, I did it...
Now we play the waiting game :)

Tìtstewan

Alright, I'm going to push this thread before the discussion will be continued in the beginner thread. :P

Quote from: Tìtstewan on January 11, 2014, 11:12:11 AM
Quote from: Kemaweyan on January 11, 2014, 10:49:35 AM
Quote from: Tìtstewan on January 11, 2014, 10:40:43 AM
Tsa'upxare ke polähem...

Pelun?
I mean Pawl's message about that mentioned discussion you have linked. :-[

Quote from: Kemaweyan on January 11, 2014, 10:49:35 AM
This indeed weird, but wm.annis has explained that "kea" for fra-X would make no sense,
because kea is a quantifier, fra- it's too. kea fra-X sound stranges as well.
There you negate a quatifier that change the noun too. Basically, here is a quantifier negated by ke...


Well, I'm a monster... I just discuss here an intermediate topic in a beginner thread. :P :-[

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Blue Elf

I'm afraid no news here....  :(
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tìtstewan

I remembered me on a similar construction:
Fìtsenge:
Quote from: On Na'viteri:Ayngeyä kifkeyti fol kawngsar nìtut, fì'uri kekem ke si aynga.
'They continuously exploit your world and you do nothing about it.'

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Kemaweyan

Quote from: Tìtstewan on January 11, 2014, 04:37:12 PM
I remembered me on a similar construction:
Fìtsenge:
Quote from: On Na'viteri:Ayngeyä kifkeyti fol kawngsar nìtut, fì'uri kekem ke si aynga.
'They continuously exploit your world and you do nothing about it.'

It is correct. Here the meaning is that you do not the action. The meaning is negative, so you should use ke si. Also you can add any negative words: nothing, never, nowhere etc.. And in languages with double (multiple) negation it does not change that ke si:

 Ke'uri kawtu kawkrr kawtseng kekem ke si.

Quote from: Tìtstewan on January 11, 2014, 11:17:44 AM
This indeed weird, but wm.annis has explained that "kea" for fra-X would make no sense,
because kea is a quantifier, fra- it's too. kea fra-X sound stranges as well.
There you negate a quatifier that change the noun too. Basically, here is a quantifier negated by ke...

I don't mean kea fra-, I know that it's incorrect and agree with that. The meaning of phrase «not all understand» is that someone understand, but not all. It is not negative meaning («no one understand» would be negative), so you don't need to say ke tslolam.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D