San and sìk as quote and unquote

[tsrräfkxätu]

I have a question regarding san & sìk. The community was quick to accept them as the equivalents of the English quotation marks, possibly because that's how they're glossed in the dictionary, but from the only canonical example I can recall they appear to be indirect speech markers instead.

I find it weird that while we're content to use standard English punctuation marks in Na'vi texts, people make a point of san-sìking when speaking figuratively, ironically, referring to words as words etc.

They're also quite unwieldy when it comes to suffixing the "quoted" text.

Any thoughts or information on that?

[omängum fra'uti]

Probably should ask that question in a new thread.  This thread isn't really for questions about the language.

[tsrräfkxätu]

There's a relevance here, as I suppose Taronyu probably glossed them the way he did for a reason. That's what I'd like to know.

Of course, as mod, you're welcome to fork the thread if you see fit.

[Tirea Aean]

I have a question regarding san & sìk. The community was quick to accept them as the equivalents of the English quotation marks, possibly because that's how they're glossed in the dictionary, but from the only canonical example I can recall they appear to be indirect speech markers instead.

I find it weird that while we're content to use standard English punctuation marks in Na'vi texts, people make a point of san-sìking when speaking figuratively, ironically, referring to words as words etc.

They're also quite unwieldy when it comes to suffixing the "quoted" text.

Any thoughts or information on that?

have you heard Paul Frommer's Trr 'Rrtayä message?

He says THIS:

"Ma oeyä eylan

Fìtrrmì letsranten-Trr 'Rrtayä-new oe pivlltxe ayngaru san kaltxì sìk ulte tivìng ayngar lì'ut a tì'efumì oeyä lo lor frato mì lì'fya leNa'vi-meoauniaea....."

and also Paul has said THIS:

...BTW, I've been thinking of san . . . sìk as correlatives, always occurring together. The only exception is if you're quoting someone and you end with material still in the quote. Then you don't have to say "unquote."

I'm not following.
Well, let's see . . .
Suppose the sentence is, "Eytukan said he would go, but I don't believe him."
Everything converts to direct speech, so it would be:
Poltxe Eytukan san oe kayä sìk, slä oel pot ke spaw.
(Note: *pollltxe > poltxe )
But if it's simply "Eytukan said he would go," and you end your speech turn there, then it's not necessary to have the concluding sìk—it's "understood."

Ah, okay. So "he said X" would use just san, "X he said" would use just sìk, right?
Yes, "He said X" would just use san if you ended there and didn't continue.
As for whether "X he said" would only use sìk and omit the initial san . . . I think that depends.
Example:
Suppose in a conversation in English you said the following:
(1) "I'm planning to sell everything I have and move to Nepal, where I'm going to take up mountain climbing and flower arranging," he said.
Since your listeners can't see the quotation marks, would it be clear to them from the start that you're talking about someone else's plans, not your own? It probably depends heavily on the context. Come to think of it, though, (1) would be very unnatural in conversation, wouldn't it? You see that structure in written material all the time, but people don't speak that way. So "X he said" questions might be rare in discourse.

And it looks like only direct speech is allowed?
Right.

There you have it.

[tsrräfkxätu]

have you heard Paul Frommer's Trr 'Rrtayä message? [...] There you have it.

So, I was right, it seems.

Maybe changing the gloss in the dic is in order, ma T?

[Tirea Aean]

well san sìk basically is a verbal " ". There is no indirect speech in Na'vi, just direct. thats why we have san sìk.

John said he's coming. (indirect speech)

in Na'vi must be said as

John said, "I'm coming."(direct speech, quoting of what John said)

poltxe John san oe zera'u sìk.

I have also noticed what you have noticed. but I try to stay true to what Paul said.

[tsrräfkxätu]

I think I had you confused by using "indirect speech," which san-sìk is, regardless that there is no indirect speech (an in English) in Na'vi. At least, that's how I see it.

Languages have tons of different ways of indicating that the statement does not originate from the actual speaker, but someone else's thought are being repeated. This is reported/indirect speech. English does so by changing the tense (or by using quotes, etc.), and san-sìk is the Na'vi way.

But if that's deemed confusing, I think we could have something like "beginning of reported speech" and "closing of reported speech," or something. Whatever people would feel happy with.

Hm?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

san and sìk don't mark reported speech though ma tsrräfkxätu, there is no reported/indirect speech in na'vi, only direct/quoted speech sot their current gloss as quote and unquote is accurate.

[tsrräfkxätu]

It cannot be direct speech when there is a particle showing that it isn't, now can it? But OK, can we please change the gloss to "beginning/closing of direct quoted speech," so people don't think it's supposed be used for any other purposes that call for quotation marks in English? Because quote and unquote mean these guys "" for many of us.

[omängum fra'uti]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_speech
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsDirectSpeech.htm

It is direct speech.  Direct speech means it is phrased in the original form of the speaker, rather than changing the pronoun and tense for the current conversation.  Note in the second it says "As it might have been uttered by the original speaker".  There is no requirement that it WAS actually said, just that it is how it might have been said by them.

Also splitting this off as it has turned into more than just a couple posts and it isn't really about the dictionary, it is a question of the language.  If the subject for this thread was something that appeared in the dictionary, then half the language discussion on this forum could end up in this thread.  If the consensus is that the there should be a change to the dictionary then it might be worth posting in that thread.  However it is worth noting the gloss as is came from Frommer.

[tsrräfkxätu]

I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that direct speech and quoted speech were one and the same. Still, I think a bit of an explanation in the dictionary wouldn't hurt, seeing how san-sìk are being misused.

[omängum fra'uti]

Where do you see them being misused?

[Muzer]

I can't think of a specific example, but I remember them being misused - someone surrounded an English word with san and sìk, as an example, and nobody batted an eyelid.

[Taronyu]

I do that all the time. If that's wrong, I'll stop - as you seem to think it is. Hmm.

I see what you mean. I'd been using it as English quotes, like that, for ages.

[Tirea Aean]

OHH like this:

lu tsaw san difficult sìk

yeah I dont think one can use san sìk like that and its commonplace. I like " " or * * or ____ or some other method...I see what you mean.

['Oma Tirea]

OHH like this:

lu tsaw san difficult sìk

yeah I dont think one can use san sìk like that and its commonplace. I like " " or * * or ____ or some other method...I see what you mean.

HRH Sran.  The san-sìk method looks weird to me as well, especially in writing.  I'm not sure how Na'vi quotes are romanticized.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I do that all the time. If that's wrong, I'll stop - as you seem to think it is. Hmm.

I see what you mean. I'd been using it as English quotes, like that, for ages.

I think this would work under their standard framework of direct speech e.g.

pehrr sar san <iv> sìk-it fkol?

Here even if the original speaker isn't specified, it could be inferred from context or just be 'awpo but that doesn't mean it can't be a quote. That said it does raise the awkward question of declining them, does the case marker go on san, sìk, both, either or the original word?

I think really we'll have to ask Frommer about using them on single words as in my example and, if that's allowed, their declension.