The Na'vi Corpus

[wm.annis]

yomt<ìy>ing

That's a tense infix in the second position....  Unless you treat it as two words, despite the compound nature, at which point it becomes yom-t<ìy>ing, and the future tense infix is in the correct place for tìng.

It sure looks like when a verb is produced by compounding words, as this one is, the infixes go into the final compound element, not the word as a whole.  So, tìng, here.

Livu is glossed as "be," not "by."  

This text is part of the "Hunt Song" from the Activist Survival Guide.

[Motxokxen]

yomt<ìy>ing

That's a tense infix in the second position....  Unless you treat it as two words, despite the compound nature, at which point it becomes yom-t<ìy>ing, and the future tense infix is in the correct place for tìng.

It sure looks like when a verb is produced by compounding words, as this one is, the infixes go into the final compound element, not the word as a whole.  So, tìng, here.

Livu is glossed as "be," not "by."  

This text is part of the "Hunt Song" from the Activist Survival Guide.

ops typo.
meant "be as in (by in the means of)"

[Coda]

It sure looks like when a verb is produced by compounding words, as this one is, the infixes go into the final compound element, not the word as a whole.  So, tìng, here.

I agree.  A similar principle seems to hold for si verbs.

The english on that last line looks wonky, btw.  The literal translation seems correct, but I don't know how he goes from there to a question without any of the typical question words.

[omängum fra'uti]

si verbs are a little easier to spot that the way they are written - you have noun verb, so obviously the infix goes into the verb part - though I assume that the combination of noun+si is treated itself as a single verb, such as Oe nari si.

The more I learn about this, I think it's important to learn the word bases, then how they combine so you know how to treat the compound word.

[Coda]

si verbs are a little easier to spot that the way they are written - you have noun verb, so obviously the infix goes into the verb part - though I assume that the combination of noun+si is treated itself as a single verb, such as Oe nari si.

The more I learn about this, I think it's important to learn the word bases, then how they combine so you know how to treat the compound word.

True, but I've seen a couple people make that mistake, so I figured it was worth pointing out.  Also, when taken together they indicate a nice rule of thumb: for compound verbs, save your conjugation for the last part.

[omängum fra'uti]

tìng nari...

tayìng nari?
tìng nayari?

I'd say the first is correct.

[Coda]

tìng nari...

tayìng nari?
tìng nayari?

I'd say the first is correct.

Nevermind, then.  This is what happens when I sneak posts in at work.  

[omängum fra'uti]

I'd say whatever word is the base of the interaction is what gets the inflection.  In the case of noun+verb, it's easy because the verb has to be the base of it.  (Nari si, kelku si, etc.)  In verb+verb, it would be whatever is the base of the action.  In the case of yomtìng, give eat, giving is what you are doing, so tìng gets the inflection.

[Motxokxen]

I'd say whatever word is the base of the interaction is what gets the inflection.  In the case of noun+verb, it's easy because the verb has to be the base of it.  (Nari si, kelku si, etc.)  In verb+verb, it would be whatever is the base of the action.  In the case of yomtìng, give eat, giving is what you are doing, so tìng gets the inflection.

ah that makes sense.

[Alìm Tsamsiyu]

I looked through this thread and didn't see it, so I decided I'd post it.  If it is here already and I just missed it, please delete this post.

Dr. Frommer's automatic out-of-office email response includes this line:

Ayftozä lefpom ayngaru nìwotx! Happy Holidays to You All!

Don't think it brings up anything revolutionary, but it's safe to say that it is 100% canon accurate.

[wm.annis]

I looked through this thread and didn't see it, so I decided I'd post it.  If it is here already and I just missed it, please delete this post.

I've been putting all new data into the Wiki Corpus page.  That's a little easier to stare at than to try to pick examples out of a long-running thread.

Frommer appears to be doing interviews again, now that Christmas has passed.  We have two new sentences from him:

Neytiri herahaw.  Neytiri is sleeping.
Neytiril yerikit tolaron. Neytiri hunted a hexapede.

Here's the interview.

[Motxokxen]

"What I would love to do is get something out to the people, but I can't do it on my own. I have to do it in conjunction with the movie people," Frommer
interesting, i hope fox is not greedy with this.

[txura utral]

<ay> is future proximate - it's about to happen
<ìy> is future general - it will happen in the future

In the language log post by Dr. Frommer, he has this written:
tayaron   'will hunt'
This seems more general, and is supported by Prrton's post under the "speculation" topic that you started. He translated "pìylltxe" as "I will speak now". I'm guessing that your post was a typo, as all of the data that I have access to supports "ay" as future general and "ìy" as future proximate.

[Taronyu]

I looked through this thread and didn't see it, so I decided I'd post it.  If it is here already and I just missed it, please delete this post.

I've been putting all new data into the Wiki Corpus page.  That's a little easier to stare at than to try to pick examples out of a long-running thread.

Frommer appears to be doing interviews again, now that Christmas has passed.  We have two new sentences from him:

Neytiri herahaw.  Neytiri is sleeping.
Neytiril yerikit tolaron. Neytiri hunted a hexapede.

Here's the interview.

I think it's safe to assume the following:

Neytiri h<er>ahaw. <--- Imperfective infix
Neytiri.l yerik.it t<ol>aron>.  <--- Perfective infix

This works nicely.

[txura utral]

Neytiri herahaw.  Neytiri is sleeping.
Neytiril yerikit tolaron. Neytiri hunted a hexapede.

In the second sentence it says "Neytiril yerikit tolaron"
Isn't the object marker "ti" not "it"?
This could be an as-of-yet unknown rule.
Just something to take note of.

[omängum fra'uti]

It's actually something we've seen before.  It can be -ti, -it or just -t, seeming to depend on the ending of the word.  -ri can similarly be -ri or -ìri.  -yä can just be -ä.  And so on.

[wm.annis]

Isn't the object marker "ti" not "it"?
This could be an as-of-yet unknown rule.

Oh, it's a known rule — for at least a weak now.  But people seem to have become emotionally attached to -ti.

[omängum fra'uti]

Oh, it's a known rule — for at least a weak now.  But people seem to have become emotionally attached to -ti.

I really have!  I-l think I will start using it-ti mì English too.

[Txur’Itan]

He is using word 2007...

At least I know what file format, in which to send my questions.

[Prrton]

...all of the data that I have access to supports "ay" as future general and "ìy" as future proximate.

That's exactly how I've been using it:

  Oe h-ìy-ahaw ye'rìn.

  "I'm going to (Southern US: "fixing to") (curl up in my hammock and) sleep momentarily"


  Oe kelku.mì fi.txon h-ay-ahaw nì.mawey

  "(This afternoon hunting has worn me out so i'm pretty sure that) I'll sleep peacefully at home tonight."