Re: sno/sneyä

[Tirea Aean]

[[MOD NOTE: Split off the Would/Could topic. Tried best I could, some posts were half-n-half. ]]

I have NO IDEA what sno even is, and I was there when it was first discussed, released and canonized. However, I do understand sneyä

sneyä is the same as peyä except it has a sense of 'own'. it's the thing that kills the ambiguity of:

he ate his dinner.

since there are two guys at the table, does it mean that one guy ate the other guy's dinner, or that one of them ate his own? Sneyä means the one guy ate his(own). In English this is ambiguous unless you are there at the moment seeing it go on.

[Ftxavanga Txe′lan]

Great. Thanks for your explanations, ma meylan!

Now I do remember hearing about sno/sneyä at some point; but I noted it this time, to make sure I don't forget it again.

[Blue Elf]

I have NO IDEA what sno even is, and I was there when it was first discussed, released and canonized. However, I do understand sneyä

sneyä is the same as peyä except it has a sense of 'own'. it's the thing that kills the ambiguity of:

he ate his dinner.

since there are two guys at the table, does it mean that one guy ate the other guy's dinner, or that one of them ate his own? Sneyä means the one guy ate his(own). In English this is ambiguous unless you are there at the moment seeing it go on.

I think you are right. My examples:
Pol 'olem peyä wutsot. -> He cooked meal for someone else.
Pol 'olem sneyä wutsot. -> He cooked (his) own meal (for himself)
Sno work something like -self, we have it in Czech, and probably also in other slavic languages.

About could, would - see also this discussion, if it helps.

[Ftxavanga Txe′lan]

 

I think you are right. My examples:
Pol 'olem peyä wutsot. -> He cooked meal for someone else.
Pol 'olem sneyä wutsot. -> He cooked (his) own meal (for himself)
Sno work something like -self, we have it in Czech, and probably also in other slavic languages.

About could, would - see also this discussion, if it helps.

Peyä is the possessive for po, right? So the first sentence says he cooked his meal, *the meal of another guy?

Thank you for the link, I'll take a look at it too!

funny how "should" has its own construction but could and would do not. most people seem to use <iv> and it is understood.

I am not sure if Paul ever explicitly said it is even possible to say "would" or "could", last I remember he said "I'll think about it" So someone somewhere proposed <iv> and it made it into NiaN and now everyone uses <iv> to mean would. and tsivun to mean could. it kinda works for now I think.

Oh, that's interesting. Perhaps an idea for an upcoming LEP proposal.. But for the time being, as it seems to work, <iv> is good!

Sno work something like -self, we have it in Czech, and probably also in other slavic languages.

Yes, it is also present in Russian, and I think sno can be used in the same fashion in Na'vi. There are situations like, for example, he's angry at himself, there I don't have any variants, except sno: snori po sti.

Makes sense!

[Tirea Aean]

apparently nìrangal actually only works with -irv- or -ilv in the verb.

snori po sti? how about po stäpi?

sno makes negative sense for me. and we dont even know what it really means/translates to, or how to use it properly.

as for <iv>, it's like I said earlier. the notion that <iv> makes any verb say "would verb" comes from NiaN. As far as I know, I haven't seen anything from Paul on how to say would or could, as I posted earlier...

But what about sentences in which there already is an <iv> infix because of a modal verb?

If they wanted to change, they could.
Would that be Txo namew livatem ayfo, tsivun? Or can we say Txo nivew livatem ayfo, tsivun?

to me:

first one says

If they wanted to change, (may it be that they) can.

second one

If (it may be that) they want to change, (may it be that they) can.

Spoiler: snip

I think you are right. My examples:
Pol 'olem peyä wutsot. -> He cooked meal for someone else.
Pol 'olem sneyä wutsot. -> He cooked (his) own meal (for himself)
Sno work something like -self, we have it in Czech, and probably also in other slavic languages.

About could, would - see also this discussion, if it helps.

Peyä is the possessive for po, right? So the first sentence says he cooked his meal, *the meal of another guy?

Thank you for the link, I'll take a look at it too!

It's ambiguous. po with peyä can mean either thing I posted: he makes his food can mean either a man makes his own food, OR he makes some other guy's food. we just dont know unless context or being there made it obvious.

EDIT: I'm wrong here, sneyä can ONLY mean one's own, and peyä can ONLY mean his(as in some other guy's)

Spoiler: snip

funny how "should" has its own construction but could and would do not. most people seem to use <iv> and it is understood.

I am not sure if Paul ever explicitly said it is even possible to say "would" or "could", last I remember he said "I'll think about it" So someone somewhere proposed <iv> and it made it into NiaN and now everyone uses <iv> to mean would. and tsivun to mean could. it kinda works for now I think.

Oh, that's interesting. Perhaps an idea for an upcoming LEP proposal.. But for the time being, as it seems to work, <iv> is good!

Sno work something like -self, we have it in Czech, and probably also in other slavic languages.

Yes, it is also present in Russian, and I think sno can be used in the same fashion in Na'vi. There are situations like, for example, he's angry at himself, there I don't have any variants, except sno: snori po sti.

Makes sense!

We just need more insight on sno. it seems odd to have äp as a reflexive infix and yet to have a strangeo pronoun with reflexive properties. In all reality, I believe sneyä came out first and someone was thikning ok so sneyä.... what's that even a gen of? sno? what is sno? the dictionary definition at the moment is even a bit misleading/confusing. it's all just so weird.

[Blue Elf]

Spoiler: snip

I think you are right. My examples:
Pol 'olem peyä wutsot. -> He cooked meal for someone else.
Pol 'olem sneyä wutsot. -> He cooked (his) own meal (for himself)
Sno work something like -self, we have it in Czech, and probably also in other slavic languages.

About could, would - see also this discussion, if it helps.

Peyä is the possessive for po, right? So the first sentence says he cooked his meal, *the meal of another guy?

Thank you for the link, I'll take a look at it too!

It's ambiguous. po with peyä can mean either thing I posted: he makes his food can mean either a man makes his own food, OR he makes some other guy's food. we just dont know unless context or being there made it obvious.

I don't think so. "Sno" is used to express reflexivity in the 3rd person, for 1st and 2nd person we use <äp> infix.
Pol 'olem peyä wutsot. -> He cooked meal for someone else. AFAIK peyä is not reflexive, while sneyä is. Ambiguity exist in English only, but this sentence says, that he cooked meal for other person, not for himself
These information come from our Czech grammar, but I don't know what source exist for this. Maybe Tanri can say more about this?

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

snori po sti? how about po stäpi?

this can't happen because sti is not transitive. the action needs to be able to be done to someone so one could do it to himself.

Spoiler: snip

I think you are right. My examples:
Pol 'olem peyä wutsot. -> He cooked meal for someone else.
Pol 'olem sneyä wutsot. -> He cooked (his) own meal (for himself)
Sno work something like -self, we have it in Czech, and probably also in other slavic languages.

About could, would - see also this discussion, if it helps.

Peyä is the possessive for po, right? So the first sentence says he cooked his meal, *the meal of another guy?

Thank you for the link, I'll take a look at it too!

It's ambiguous. po with peyä can mean either thing I posted: he makes his food can mean either a man makes his own food, OR he makes some other guy's food. we just dont know unless context or being there made it obvious.

I don't think so. "Sno" is used to express reflexivity in the 3rd person, for 1st and 2nd person we use <äp> infix.
Pol 'olem peyä wutsot. -> He cooked meal for someone else. AFAIK peyä is not reflexive, while sneyä is. Ambiguity exist in English only, but this sentence says, that he cooked meal for other person, not for himself
These information come from our Czech grammar, but I don't know what source exist for this. Maybe Tanri can say more about this?

po here can refer either to the same po that is cooking, or to another po. they're both po so we don't know.

[Plumps]

snori po sti? how about po stäpi?

this can't happen because sti is not transitive. the action needs to be able to be done to someone so one could do it to himself.

The dangerous areas of transitivity I think William can say something about that.
si verbs are considered intransitive, still we have a form of win säpi

I could imagine *stäpeyki

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

snori po sti? how about po stäpi?

this can't happen because sti is not transitive. the action needs to be able to be done to someone so one could do it to himself.

The dangerous areas of transitivity I think William can say something about that.
si verbs are considered intransitive, still we have a form of win säpi

I could imagine *stäpeyki

"si" verbs may have intransitive syntax but they don't necessarily carry an intransitive meaning. "win si" means "to rush something or someone", so it's meaning is transitive.

[Lance R. Casey]

During the Language Workshop last year, Karyu Pawl used the examples pol 'olem peyä wutsot and pol 'olem sneyä wutsot and said this:

If it's sneyä, it can only be interpreted "he cooked his own dinner". And if it's peyä, it can only be interpreted "he cooked somebody else's".

In other words, the construed ambiguity of peyä is an artifact of English, not Na'vi. As for sno on its own, my take on it is here. Basically, I'd view it as a rough Na'vi equivalent to "self", as an invariant reflexive pronoun.

[Blue Elf]

During the Language Workshop last year, Karyu Pawl used the examples pol 'olem peyä wutsot and pol 'olem sneyä wutsot and said this:

If it's sneyä, it can only be interpreted "he cooked his own dinner". And if it's peyä, it can only be interpreted "he cooked somebody else's".

In other words, the construed ambiguity of peyä is an artifact of English, not Na'vi. As for sno on its own, my take on it is here. Basically, I'd view it as a rough Na'vi equivalent to "self", as an invariant reflexive pronoun.

I'm glad I can see source which supports my knowledge. Also is good to see another examples with sno uninflected. Thanks.

[Ftxavanga Txe′lan]

During the Language Workshop last year, Karyu Pawl used the examples pol 'olem peyä wutsot and pol 'olem sneyä wutsot and said this:

If it's sneyä, it can only be interpreted "he cooked his own dinner". And if it's peyä, it can only be interpreted "he cooked somebody else's".

In other words, the construed ambiguity of peyä is an artifact of English, not Na'vi. As for sno on its own, my take on it is here. Basically, I'd view it as a rough Na'vi equivalent to "self", as an invariant reflexive pronoun.

I'm glad I can see source which supports my knowledge. Also is good to see another examples with sno uninflected. Thanks.

Great! I guess we have our answer now, and you were totally right, ma Blue Elf. Well, K. Pawl's examples don't demonstrate that first and second person reflexivity is expressed with <äp>, but the rest is clearly demonstrated to be correct.

[Plumps]

Well, K. Pawl's examples don't demonstrate that first and second person reflexivity is expressed with <äp>, but the rest is clearly demonstrated to be correct.

There is a difference there. You can still use äp with the third person pronoun but then it means 'oneself' as in, po 'äpolem = he cooked himself vs. pol 'olem wutsot sneyä = he cooked his own dinner.
Same as:
oe tsäpe'a = I see myself (in a mirror)
nga täpakuk = you hit yourself (with the club)
And these are all correct uses from what we know so far.

The thing that is still a bit unclear is whether sneyä can also refer back to 1st and 2nd person pronouns or for pluralforms, e.g.
*oel 'em wutsot sneyä
*ngal 'em wutsot sneyä
*fol 'em wutsot sneyä

If sno means indeed something along the lines of 'referring back to the original subject of the sentence' then all these forms could be correct. As LRC said, it has nothing to do with the English ambiguity then but is rather a grammatical necessity.
Frommer wanted to ponder over these questions, AFAIR.

[Ftxavanga Txe′lan]

Oh okay, good. This definitely puts things into perspective!

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

The thing that is still a bit unclear is whether sneyä can also refer back to 1st and 2nd person pronouns or for pluralforms, e.g.
*oel 'em wutsot sneyä
*ngal 'em wutsot sneyä
*fol 'em wutsot sneyä

in Russian there is also a "sno", and it is used with everything. so this works in Russian.

[Sireayä mokri]

in Russian there is also a "sno", and it is used with everything. so this works in Russian.

I'd say that it's not really necessary in Na'vi, since there would be no ambiguity in first and second person.

[Tanri]

snori po sti? how about po stäpi?

Maybe Pol steyki snot is possible too, or go around reflexivity of sti with something like Pol zamunge snoru tìstit.

About sno in 1st and 2nd person, my point of view is not quite consistent.
While czech, as russian and other slavic languages, uses alternative of sno with all persons, i understand the fact that sno was created to remove ambiguity from "po...peyä" type of sentences, and its use in 1st and 2nd person is not confirmed (or not decided yet).
This, and many other questions, awaits for Karyu Pawl.

To be honest, when i want to say something, i follow this sequence:
1) Use attested and approved forms, if available.
2) Try to say this with another words, circumvent the problem.
3) If (and only if) all this fails, use words from "gray zone" (unattested, wildly derived or with no previous examples).
My thought behind variant 3) is this: "If something is unclear, cannot be completely forbidden - because if something is forbidden, is it clear".

[omängum fra'uti]

I seem to recall Frommer saying that use of sno derivatives was the sole domain of the third person in Na'vi, and that is is incorrect to use it for the first or second person.

[Ftxavanga Txe′lan]

To be honest, when i want to say something, i follow this sequence:
1) Use attested and approved forms, if available.
2) Try to say this with another words, circumvent the problem.
3) If (and only if) all this fails, use words from "gray zone" (unattested, wildly derived or with no previous examples).
My thought behind variant 3) is this: "If something is unclear, cannot be completely forbidden - because if something is forbidden, is it clear".

This is great. I think I do approximately the same thing.

I seem to recall Frommer saying that use of sno derivatives was the sole domain of the third person in Na'vi, and that is is incorrect to use it for the first or second person.

Thanks a lot for this! It seems like we're getting more and more evidence of K. Pawl's true vision on the matter!

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

snori po sti? how about po stäpi?

Maybe Pol steyki snot is possible too, or go around reflexivity of sti with something like Pol zamunge snoru tìstit.

just po stäpeyki. eyk turns it into transitive so you can put äp.

I seem to recall Frommer saying that use of sno derivatives was the sole domain of the third person in Na'vi, and that is is incorrect to use it for the first or second person.

that makes sense because anyway only third person has ambiguity. the sno was invented for this case.