perfective aspect?

[Erimeyz]

[...] For example: Oel taron.  Did I mean to say "I hunt" in the present tense?  [...]

(Sorry to derail the discussion I started, but wouldn't "I hunt-INT" rather be oe taron?)

Sorry to derail further, but Oel taron is correct, if you mean to imply the existence of an unspecified direct object, which I did.

[tsrräfkxätu]

Sorry to derail further, but Oel taron is correct, if you mean to imply the existence of an unspecified direct object, which I did.

Ah! I see now what you did there!

[Skyinou]

How often do the Na'vi make "tenseless" statements?  We don't know.  Maybe never.  Frommer would have to tell us.

That's one of the things I was thinking when I said "neutral".
An habit can't be perfective or imperfective, so I think it is possible, if this concept exist in Na'vi, that there is a third options.
But yes we have to wait for Frommer's words. A third one will be really cool, difficult and fascinating to tell stories, actually.

[omängum fra'uti]

Why can't a habit be imperfective?  The very first line of the wikipedia article for Imperfective Aspect says, "It refers to an action that is viewed from a particular viewpoint as ongoing, habitual, repeated, or generally containing internal structure."

[Will Txankamuse]

without the perfective aspect, how else would I say:

After I have hunted [tolaron], I eat.

Will

[tsrräfkxätu]

without the perfective aspect, how else would I say:

After I have hunted [tolaron], I eat.

"Have hunted" isn't perfective, it's perfect.

[Will Txankamuse]

without the perfective aspect, how else would I say:

After I have hunted [tolaron], I eat.

"Have hunted" isn't perfective, it's perfect.

hmm.  I thought that the first clause in my sentence was in the present perfect which is present tense with perfective aspect.  It's more clear if I change the second clause to the future tense:

After I have hunted, I will eat.

I am viewing the complete act of hunting from the present.

Will

[roger]

without the perfective aspect, how else would I say:

After I have hunted [tolaron], I eat.

"Have hunted" isn't perfective, it's perfect.

hmm.  I thought that the first clause in my sentence was in the present perfect which is present tense with perfective aspect.  It's more clear if I change the second clause to the future tense:

After I have hunted, I will eat.

I am viewing the complete act of hunting from the present.

Will

"Perfect" means s.t. that's happened in the past, the effects of which are relevant in the present. So it isn't a pure aspect. There are moves to rename it "anterior" to stop this confusion, but meanwhile that -ive makes all the difference.

[Alìm Tsamsiyu]

I'm not sure if I'll ever fully understand exactly how the perfective aspect works...  I think I've got it figured out, but my frigging eltu leÌnglìsì can't seem to wrap itself around it fully.

I've got the basic idea that it represents a single event in time that is complete, regardless of tense, but it seems exceedingly difficult to translate this from Na'vi into English accurately without drifting into Present Perfect.  Because of this translation difficulty, I probably don't use <ol> as much as I should, since usually I'm translating from English to Na'vi (even if this translation is very quick behind the scenes in my thought processes), and not just speaking Na'vi directly.

v_v  

[Skyinou]

I probably don't use <ol> as much as I should

Well, lots of people use it excessively for everything that is past. So let's wait for more canonical examples from Frommer to help understand when we should and/or have to use it. One of the use attested of "ol" alone is with "a krr". (After)The time of something, something else.
Ex.: "When I receive an answer, I will let you know" => "Tì'eyngit oel tolel a krr, ayngaru payeng"

Why can't a habit be imperfective?  The very first line of the wikipedia article for Imperfective Aspect says, "It refers to an action that is viewed from a particular viewpoint as ongoing, habitual, repeated, or generally containing internal structure."

Irayo!

[tsrräfkxätu]

Ex.: "When I receive an answer, I will let you know" => "Tì'eyngit oel tolel a krr, ayngaru payeng"

Great! I wasn't aware of this. The funny thing is this seems like a perfect place for a perfect aspect: once I have an answer. Looks suspicious...  

[Skyinou]

But "perfect" is not really an aspect. It's an english verb form. And here it's exactly a perfective. A distinct precise action, about which the content doesn't have interest for us and we "see" the end. And precisely at the end of which Dr. Frommer will do something.

[tsrräfkxätu]

I agree that we're still on the fence with this particular example, but you have to admit that it lends itself particularly well to a perfect interpretation. Also, as far as I'm concerned, tolel as a perfective verb is superfluously marked exactly because of the a krr, which already defines a point-like view of the action. There's no such redundancy with a passive construction. That, and of course Frommer's own "have hunted" for tolaron still have me doubt the general consensus.

[Skyinou]

and of course Frommer's own "have hunted" for tolaron still have me doubt the general consensus.

Yes, this one, I don't like it either, but "one of the possible translation" is also written with it.
Which can be:
"oe tolaron a krr oe yom/yamom" => "When I have hunted I eat/ate"
(hope this sentence is correct in english, if not, just don't read it and find a real example  )
But look at this with imperfective:
"oe teraron a krr oe yom/yamom" => "When/while I am hunting, I eat/ate"
Which has not the same meaning. So the "ol" is needed in this construction. Yes, with "receive" the difference is very little, but is there anyway.

[tsrräfkxätu]

and of course Frommer's own "have hunted" for tolaron still have me doubt the general consensus.

Yes, this one, I don't like it either, but "one of the possible translation" is also written with it.

The root of my issue here is that perfect and perfective are mutually exclusive, so "have hunted" is not a possible translation of a perfective tolaron. I think Frommer knows that.

Which can be:
"oe tolaron a krr oe yom/yamom" => "When I have hunted I eat/ate"
(hope this sentence is correct in english, if not, just don't read it and find a real example   )
But look at this with imperfective:
"oe teraron a krr oe yom/yamom" => "When/while I am hunting, I eat/ate"
Which has not the same meaning. So the "ol" is needed in this construction. Yes, with "receive" the difference is very little, but is there anyway.

We have tengkrr for "while", so the second possibility is dubious.

[Skyinou]

1) The root of my issue here is that perfect and perfective are mutually exclusive, so "have hunted" is not a possible translation of a perfective tolaron. I think Frommer knows that.

2) We have tengkrr for "while", so the second possibility is dubious.

1) No. They are not exclusive. They can have the same meaning in the right context. The thing is that it is not the ONLY translation possible.

2) Well, there is always more than one way to say something. I don't think that "krr" is one precise instant. Is that wrong?
The use of "tengkrr" is probably best for two action happening in the same time, and during.
"oe teraron a krr oe yom" // "oe teraron tengkrr ke tompa l(er)u"
BUT that's my own interpretation of "tengkrr" and "a krr" here! AND my english "while" is maybe misused.

[tsrräfkxätu]

1) No. They are not exclusive. They can have the same meaning in the right context. The thing is that it is not the ONLY translation possible.

Are, too. No, but seriously, they are two completely different things by definition. Perfective is the speaker's view of an event as a discrete point in time with neither internal structure nor ongoing effect, while perfect is a result-oriented view of an event, where the result has a relevance in the speaker's present. English simple past and present perfect come pretty close to the two concepts, respectively. Given that they both have a +tense: PST attribute, you can consider the two sentences "I broke my arm" and "I have broken my arm" minimal pairs in this respect, so the only difference between their meaning boils down to the difference between the perfect and the perfective aspects alone. Still not convinced? Check out the 'Peed.

Also note, that I've never claimed to know the only possible translation of anything, all I said before was that a perfect sentence is, by all means, NOT a possible translation of a perfective one, given that one is trying to achieve a minimal level of grammatical fidelity.

2) Well, there is always more than one way to say something. I don't think that "krr" is one precise instant. Is that wrong?
The use of "tengkrr" is probably best for two action happening in the same time, and during.
"oe teraron a krr oe yom" // "oe teraron tengkrr ke tompa l(er)u"
BUT that's my own interpretation of "tengkrr" and "a krr" here! AND my english "while" is maybe misused.

You cannot prove a point by relying on unknown variables. We do not know at this point how exactly tengkrr and a krr are to be used, and whether they could be synonyms or not, so all this is just theory. That's what I stated below. Perhaps it could work as you explained, but we cannot be sure. We need more examples or, preferably, some input from 'Mer.

[Skyinou]

We need more examples or, preferably, some input from 'Mer.

1) Then we have time, waiting. So why not already talk about what it could be? I think you agree since you answer.

I don't try to prove my grammar, I explain why I think so. (See 1)  

You are right, and I think I'm too, but not able to say it properly. Yes perfect and perfective are not compatible, thinking of them in therms of aspects and tenses.
But thinking of "perfect" as an english tense and "perfective" as an aspect (for whatever language it is used for), we will need to translate roughly "perfective" Na'vi into english "Perfect" sometimes, even if it is not exact. I was speaking about practical translations here, not ideas.
So excuse-me if it was not clear.

[Keylstxatsmen]

There is this:

PRESENT IMPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE: -iv- + IMPERFECT -er- --> -irv-
PRESENT PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE: -iv- + PERFECT -ol- --> -ilv-

...

[ -ìrm- : past proximate imperfective – "was just thinking . . . "

I think these are the only times I have ever seen Karyu Pawl mention the aspects by name.  I assume someone with better knowledge than me can explain why he said PERFECT in this case, and why it means PERFECTIVE.

(Why did anyone name the two things Perfective and Perfect if they are so different??? Faysawtute!)

-Keyl

[omängum fra'uti]

Well...

From language log...

Aspect is perfective or imperfective. Tense has five points on the time line: present, past proximate, past general, future proximate, future general. Verbs can be inflected for tense alone, aspect alone, or a combination of tense and aspect.