Oe si nga

[GEOvanne]

Oel torukit taron

But what if I wanted to say Me and You hunt a leonopterix?

would it be:

Oel si ngal torukit taron

or

Oe si ngal torukit taron

[Tirea Aean]

Oengal

[GEOvanne]

Oh yeah.... bad example.
What if I used someones name? Would they both end in -l ?

[Tirea Aean]

yes. I do believe.

[Kemaweyan]

BTW, when we need to say "I and you" in russian, we usually say "we with you" which means inclusive form of "we" - as "oeng" in Na'vi So I think we always should use "oeng" rather than "oe sì nga"...

[Tirea Aean]

BTW, when we need to say "I and you" in russian, we usually say "we with you" which means inclusive form of "we" - as "oeng" in Na'vi So I think we always should use "oeng" rather than "oe sì nga"...

thats kinda the explanation expansion of what i meant by my one word post. "Oengal"

[Tsamsiyu92]

Oel <name>sì / oel sì <name> seems right to me. I doubt there's need for the subjective marker on them both as they follow eatch other with sì inbetween.

[MIPP]

As <name1> sì <name2> is the agentive (subject), I think you mjst put -l in both of them.
In Portuguese we don't have suffixes for cases, however we have many kinds of subjects:

Simple subject: They hunt; I hunt.
Compound subject: John and Sarah hunt.

So, I think the suffixe must be added.

[Tirea Aean]

As <name1> sì <name2> is the agentive (subject), I think you mjst put -l in both of them.
In Portuguese we don't have suffixes for cases, however we have many kinds of subjects:

Simple subject: They hunt; I hunt.
Compound subject: John and Sarah hunt.

So, I think the suffixe must be added.

Oel <name>sì / oel sì <name> seems right to me. I doubt there's need for the subjective marker on them both as they follow eatch other with sì inbetween.

yeah. I dont think there is a recursive property of the agentive case marker. therefore I believe it needs to be on every separate noun that does the action...unless you wanna sum them all up with a single pronoun and put that in the agentive case...and for elaboration, attribute:

fol alu 1, 2, 3, 4, sì 5 yom syuvet. not 100% sure on that. but pretty sure that you cant just say:

1-l, 2, 3, 4, sì 5 yom syuvet. I feel that may make some sense, but would be grammatically incorrect. just like I eated a apple is grammatically incorrect but makes some sense. (tho we all would prefer something that BOTH makes sense and is grammatical )

[Kì'eyawn]

AFAIK we haven't seen the agentive suffix used this way, but i know i've seen Pawl use the patientive like this:  i.e., he wrote something that had [noun1]-it [noun2]-tisì.  Wish i could remember where i saw it... (Ma Tirea Aean, smon tsaw ngaru srak?).  So, if we know sì still requires the patientive suffix on all relevant nouns, it stands to reason the same would be true for the agentive, kefyak?

P.S. I learned the old ergative/accusative names for the cases originally, so please forgive me (and correct me!) if i've misused the current terms.

[Lance R. Casey]

AFAIK we haven't seen the agentive suffix used this way, but i know i've seen Pawl use the patientive like this:  i.e., he wrote something that had [noun1]-it [noun2]-tisì.  Wish i could remember where i saw it...

'Twas in the Ma Sempul response:

tsakrr paye'un sweya fya'ot a zamivunge oel ayngar aylì'ut horentisì lì'fyayä leNa'vi.

[Tirea Aean]

AFAIK we haven't seen the agentive suffix used this way, but i know i've seen Pawl use the patientive like this:  i.e., he wrote something that had [noun1]-it [noun2]-tisì.  Wish i could remember where i saw it...

'Twas in the Ma Sempul response:

tsakrr paye'un sweya fya'ot a zamivunge oel ayngar aylì'ut horentisì lì'fyayä leNa'vi.

dang you beat me.... I knew exactly that sentence the second I read Kì'eyawn's post. I memorized that entire thing from beginning to end as well as almost the rest of the audio corups. that way, i dont have to keep going and looking it up to provide canon examples of stuff.

so there you have the nondistributive property of -t. that just implies that -l would be the same way.

here's a question:

[A]l l [C]l and [D]l [verbed] [E]t [F]t [G]t and [H]t.

which one does which? unless you order them correctly and say "in that order" or "respectively" but order shouldnt matter in Na'vi? tho to be fair, if you were to say somehting like this, the who does which isnt important. so you wanted to be specific probably expand it out: [A]l verbed [E]t, l verbed [F]t.....but that takes too long. XD