Tìsngä'ikrr: 'Aw kxamlä Neyn

[Taronyu]

So, a tradition in the conlanging world is to translate Genesis 11:1-9 into your language. Since Frommer hasn't done this yet, I took it upon myself. It was surprisingly easy, I think, but I haven't translated anything in a while, and I made heavy, heavy use of the Aylì'u Fwewyu (the best application out there, as far as I am concerned.) I figured I'd post it here instead of the Bible forum, so that ya'll could have a look and tell me where I messed up. Enjoy.

NìÌnglìsi: Genesis 11: 1-9
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.
6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.
7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.
9 That is why it was called Babel — because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

NìNa'vi:
Kifkeyur 'awa lì'fya sì tìpängkxo tenga nìwotx set lolu. Trr'ongne Na'vi rerikx krr a fol mì Sìnar teit run ulte mì fìtsenge kelku soli. Fo päplltxe san Ziva'u, kllteä itit ngivop ulte sa'ut 'ivem nìwotx sìk. Fol kllteä itit sar tup skxe, ulte kllteä pay säyimìri. Tsakrr fol plltxe san Ziva'u, fori fol txivula tsawla tsrayit a pumur lu ultral tskxeä a tsawl slu tawne, fte ayngaru tskxot ngivop ulte aynga avawnirä ke längu mì hey Ewya'evengä nìwotx sìk.

Slä Yawä kllkä fte pol tsawla tsrayit sì utralit tskxeä a fo txarmula kivame. Yawä plltxe san Txo fol tìngusop fì'uä sngolä'i a krr fo nìwotx 'awa pongu a plltxe tenga lì'fya lu, ke'uri a fo fpìl 'uteri fo ke tsun ke kem sivi. Za'u, pxenga kivllkä fte livatem foä lì'fyat fte fo käpivame sìk.

Ha Yawäl fot 'olärìp tsatsengne ka Eywa'eveng nìwotx, ulte fol tsawla tsrayitä tìtxuslat ftang. Tafral fìtsenge Pxäpxel syaw - alunta fìtsengemì Yawäl lolatem lì'fyat Eywa'evengä. Tsatsengeta Yawäl 'ärìp fot ka key Eywa'evengä.


Notes: We don't have an adjective for "whole, entire". Nor one for "east." I had to work around these. I've tried to use aspect clearly in here, but it's been hard: there's no inceptive aspect, for instance, which would have been useful. I decided not to include a gloss, because it's more fun this way. And I am fairly positive I messed up in a few places. Have a look!

['Oma Tirea]

This reminds me: I've been wondering what the Na'vi words for the four directions are (apparently still being debated by Frommer).

Ayoe kolämakto ayhufwehu atsing.

Slä peu lu "ayhufwe atsing"?

[Taronyu]

With the four winds. Seems pretty clear to me...

[Kì'eyawn]

With the four winds. Seems pretty clear to me...

Srane, but "the four winds" is an English idiom, kefyak?

[Taronyu]

Well, Jake did say it...

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Well, Jake did say it...

The line I think you are referring to is Kamakto nìwin ayngati spivule hufwel, which means 'Ride out all of you, fast, propelled by the wind'. (Remember, Tsu`tey was translating for Jake).

In any case, nice work, Taronyu, and I hope to look at it carefully soon!

[Plumps]

It was only a matter of time
I like your approach to »tower«
Here's what I've noticed:

NìNa'vi:
Kifkeyur 'awa lì'fya sì tìpängkxo atenga nìwotx set lolu. what about 'änsyem for »whole«?
[...]Fo päplltxe san Ziva'u, kllteyä itit ngivop ulte sa'ut 'ivem nìwotx sìk. Fol kllteyä itit sar tup skxe (the old question whether the object after tup takes the same case as itit... ), ulte kllteyä pay säyimìri .
Tsakrr fol plltxe san Ziva'u, fori fol txivula tsawla tsrayit a pumur lu ultral tskxeyä a tsawl slu tawne, fte ayngaru tskxot ngivop ulte aynga avawnirä ke längu mì hey Ewya'evengä nìwotx sìk. is it possible to combine a past participle form with a pronoun? not sure about that

Slä Yawä kllkä fte pol tsawla tsrayit sì utralit tskxeyä a fo txarmula kivame. I'd have used tse'a here...
Yawä plltxe san Txo fol tìngusop fì'uä sngolä'i a krr fo nìwotx 'awa pongu a plltxe tenga lì'fya lu, ke'uri a fo fpìl 'uteri fo ke tsun ke kem sivi. Semantics, but we have a word for »impossible« keltsun
Za'u, pxenga kivllkivä (ko) fte leykivatem foä feyä lì'fyat fte fo ke käpivame sìk. why pxenga »you three«? ; I'm a bit hesitant about the use of ‹äp› here... Isn't the meaning »see each other« (yet unknown construction) and not »see themselves« (= ‹äp›)? Here it might work. In other instances it would not...

Ha Yawäl fot 'olärìp tsatsengne ka Eywa'eveng nìwotx, ulte fol tsawla tsrayitä tìtxusulat ftang. again hesitant about the use of »stop doing sth.«
Tafral fìtsengur Pxäpxel syaw fko - alunta fìtsengemì Yawäl leykolatem lì'fyat Eywa'evengä. Tsatsengeta Yawäl 'ärìp fot ka key Eywa'evengä. I'd go for Päpll but if the people working on the Bible project decided differently then I didn't say anything

Could be that I missed something...

[Lance R. Casey]

Fol kllteyä itit sar tup skxe[/b] (the old question whether the object after tup takes the same case as itit... ),

Well, I wrote "Srake ngal tsat solar tup lì'ut [...]" in an email to Frommer and he didn't correct it, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. However, I'd fully expect the cases to work this way.

ulte kllteyä pay säyimìri .

I took it as "and water-of-the-ground for binding material", with a misspelt yìm, but pay should also be accusative.

More edits, more colors:

Tsakrr fol plltxe san Ziva'u, fori fol awngari txivula ko tsawla tsrayit a pumur tsaru lu ultral tskxeyä a tsawl slu tawne, fte ayngaru awngar tskxot ngivop ulte aynga avawnirä ke längu mì hey Ewya'evengä nìwotx sìk. is it possible to combine a past participle form with a pronoun? not sure about that

There are more problems with that last clause, so I'd suggest something simple like awnga ke vasyirä ka Eywa'eveng nìwotx.

Slä Yawä kllkä fte pol tsawla tsrayit sì utralit tskxeyä a fol txarmula kivame. I'd have used tse'a here...

As would I.

Yawä plltxe san Txo fol tìngusop fì'uä sngolä'i a krr fo nìwotx 'awa pongu a plltxe tenga lì'fya lu, ke'uri a fo fpìl 'uteri fo ke tsun ke kem sivi. Semantics, but we have a word for »impossible« keltsun

My take using your mold: Yawä plltxe san Txo fo sngolä'i fìkem sivi krr a leru 'awa olo' a plltxe fa tenga lì'fya, ke'u a fo fpìl tsateri ke layu keltsun.

Za'u, pxenga kivllkivä (ko) fte leykivatem foä feyä lì'fyat fte fo ke käpivame sìk. why pxenga »you three«? ; I'm a bit hesitant about the use of ‹äp› here... Isn't the meaning »see each other« (yet unknown construction) and not »see themselves« (= ‹äp›)? Here it might work. In other instances it would not...

I'm guessing it should be pxoeng, referring to Trinity.

Ha Yawäl fot 'olärìp tsatsengne ka Eywa'eveng nìwotx, ulte fol tsawla tsrayitä tìtxusulat ftang. again hesitant about the use of »stop doing sth.«

How about fol ft(ol)ang futa tsawla tsrayit txula? Or, considering that sngä'i uses the modal syntax, perhaps ftang does too and futa is unnecessary/wrong.

Tafral fìtsengur Pxäpxel syaw fko - alunta taluna fìtsengemì Yawäl leykolatem lì'fyat Eywa'evengä. Tsatsengetaftu Yawäl 'ärìp fot ka key Eywa'evengä. I'd go for Päpll but if the people working on the Bible project decided differently then I didn't say anything

An unaspirated voiceless plosive is definitely, in my experience, closer in sound to the corresponding voiced one than is an ejective, so I will always favor "b" -> p. And I think using key for "face (of the Earth)" is way too literal.


Edited to include this line:

Trr'ongne Na'vi rerikx a krr a fol mì Sìnar teit run ulte mì fìtsenge kelku soli.

Regarding tei, I believe the given translation in the game is "plains", so if it's an entirely accurate word, the singular may be *txei.

[Taronyu]

You guys are both very helpful, and thank you. I knew someone needed to go through this. I did not know how rusty I was, but I suspected. Can't believe I managed to screw up the genitive so bad. Here's the proposed changed text:

Kifkeyur 'awa lì'fya sì tìpängkxo ateng nìwotx set lolu. Trr'ongne Na'vi rerikx krr a fol mì Sìnar teit run ulte mì fìtsenge kelku soli. Fo päplltxe san Ziva'u, kllteyä itit ngivop ulte sa'ut 'ivem nìwotx sìk. Fol kllteyä itit sar tup skxe, ulte kllteyä payit säyìmìri. Tsakrr fol plltxe san Ziva'u, awngari txivula tsawla tsrayit a tsar lu ultral tskxeyä a tsawl slu tawne, fte awngaru tskxot ngivop ulte awnga vawnirä ke längu ka Ewya'eveng nìwotx sìk.

Slä Yawä kllkä fte pol tsawla tsrayit sì utralit tskxeyä a fo txarmula kivame. Yawä plltxe san Txo fol tìngusop fì'uä sngolä'i a krr fo nìwotx 'awa pongu a plltxe tenga lì'fya lu, ke'u a fo hawl keltsun layu. Za'u, pxoeng kllkivä fte leykivatem feyä lì'fyat fte fo ke käpivame sìk.

Ha Yawäl fot 'olärìp tsatsengne ka Eywa'eveng nìwotx, ulte fol tsawla tsrayä tìtxusulat ftang. Tafral fìtsengur Pxäpxll syaw fko - alunta fìtsengemì Yawäl leykolatem lì'fyat Eywa'evengä. Tsatsengeta Yawäl 'ärìp fot ka key Eywa'evengä. 

säyìm = mortar. the.thing.which.binds. I think this is worthy neologism. Yes, I mispelt it originally. I blame the sea.
a-v«awn»irä with pronoun is totally valid, as far as I know. I changed the construction to awnga vawnirä ke längu ka Ewya'eveng nìwotx, anyway, though, partly on Lance's suggestion. You guys think this works?
tse'a vs. kame ... Well, I didn't think that the Lord would really see with his eyes. I take tse'a to be a pretty physical act. I think something else is being implied here - let us see, in order to understand. Hence kame.
ke'u a fo hawl keltsun layu. How does that work? I think it's alright.
pxäpxll - I always considered the voiced stops to be closer to the ejective variants, as in Chinese transcription. The syllabic l is a nice touch, though.

What do you guys think?

[Lance R. Casey]

Well, apart from what's already been said:

a-v«awn»irä with pronoun is totally valid, as far as I know. I changed the construction to awnga vawnirä ke längu ka Ewya'eveng nìwotx, anyway, though, partly on Lance's suggestion. You guys think this works?

No, first and foremost because of the prohibition against predicative participles. I don't think there has been a definite indication as to the transitivity of virä (has there?), but my feeling is that it is intransitive, which would more or less preclude ‹awn›.

ke'u a fo hawl keltsun layu. How does that work? I think it's alright.

ke'u a tsari fo hawl keltsun ke layu

As for "Babel", is not the Aramaic pronunciation more along the lines of [babɛl]? Which source do you imagine for the transliteration?

[’eylan ’angtsìkä]

Having been a lurking newbie, (a) irayo for all I've learned from studying this thread; and (b) I promise not to ask newbie grammar questions.  What I would like to raise, if I may, are two issues related to translation theory and practice, and to ask how these get addressed in this forum. 

As an example, I'll address theology and source language in what is perhaps the most contentious phrase in the text translated: 
Come, let us go down
Za'u, pxoeng kllkivä

Theology

As a Jew, I cannot accept pxoeng.  That doesn't mean you can't translate it that way, but be aware that your translation is sectarian.  I wonder how this is dealt with in other conglang translations?

The use of first person plural for descend was a source of 'discussion' with pagans long before Christianity raised the issue.  The traditional Jewish explanation is that God was speaking to the angels.  Thus, a third person plural is appropriate, and given the slightly formal language, perhaps ayoeng is preferable to awnga.

Regardless of their personal belief, I think most academics would not accept that the original writers were Trinitarian, and thus would view the first person triad as epigetical, reading into the text, not exegetical. 

Source Language

Translating from the original language vs translating from a translation can produce profound differences, and how to be relatively true to the original language even if they don't speak it has long been an active discussion among Bible translators.  I don't know if there's a conlang protocol on it, but if the standard is to translate from English, my comments here are irrelevant.

"habhah" (or "havah") the Hebrew word translated "Come" in English has nothing to do with any verb of motion.  in this form it occurs only once elsewhere in the Bible, when Pharoah says to his courtiers of the prolific Jews, "Come, let us deal wisely with them lest they multiply."  (Exodus 1:10)  The word is probably related to the semitic root YHB, which does not occur in Hebrew, but means "give" in Syriac, etc.)  The final "h" may be a cohortative.  The word also appears as a plural imperative, e.g. Psalm 96, where it means "give God glory and strength", not with any implication of giving something to God but rather meaning "ascribe to God glory and strength", i.e. acknowledge God's glory and strength.

In any case, the word is an invitational one.  You may know the song "hava nagilla", which is "Let's rejoice".  Pharoah has an idea and he suggests that the courtiers go along with it.  (Not that they have any real choice.  And perhaps the same is implied in Gen 11:7.) 

In English, "Come" may be used as invitational, although I think "Let's" is usually more appropriate (and is indeed sometimes used by a person who's going to do it anyway and expects those addressed to go along with it).  In Na'vi, however, there's an option that English doesn't have.  It seems to me that the best translation nìNa'vi  might be sentence-final ko.

Conclusion

As a result of eliminating the Trinitarianism, and  making use of an Na'vi option not available to English, I would translate:
Let's go down
Ayoeng kllkivä, ko.

My questions:
Is this appropriate to the thread or off-topic? 
If not, is there a thread appropriate for this?


p.s.  Although IMHO papel seems closer to Babel than pxapxel, that's a question for more experienced speakers than I.  With regard to the vocalic ll, I'll point out that the Hebrew has a distinct vowel, which is accented. 

[Taronyu]

That all seems right. I had translated from my Christian background, and yes, from the English, which is standard practice for those who don't know Hebrew.

Your translation is more suitable. No need for a comma, though.

Yes, this is the thread. Technically you did what is called a 'necropost', where you brought up a thread that hasn't been opened in ten days. The mods tend to frown on that. But, seeing as how that was an incredibly informative and awesome post, don't worry about it.

[’eylan ’angtsìkä]

Thanks!
If you're interested, I also posted in Bible an attempt to translate the first few verses of Ruth.