What really is fwa, futa, etc.?

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

 A discussion http://forum.learnnavi.org/bible/ansyema-2-john-pivey-pxasik!/msg519268/#msg519268 sparked an interesting question.

We have in Na'vi, a group of words used primarily as subordinators. These words include words like fwa, futa, tsaria and a number of others. They are all listed as pronoun, subordinator. I believe a long time ago, they were considered conjunctions (and a subordinator would be a spacial case of a conjunction, I would think). But why are they listed as pronouns? Are they really even pronouns?

[Tirea Aean]

After having pasted that in that topic, I saw this topc coming. I would be most interested in the thoughts of others.

F words. they are what they are. we see by examples how they are used. that's all that matters for these, I'd say.

[Carborundum]

This is a very interesting question. I have never really been happy with listing these words as pronoun, subordinator. The Wiki dictionary still lists them as conjunctions, in fact. Going by Wikipedia (which is where I get all of my linguistic information ) they should probably be listed as complementizers, which are a special form of conjunctions. I say we should either go back to listing the F-words as conjunctions, or list them as complementizers.

I'm also uncertain why a is listed as subordinator. IIRC that was Taronyu's idea, and I never really understood his reasoning. As far as I can tell, a is a typical relative pronoun, and should either be listed as such, or simply as a pronoun.

[Tirea Aean]

yeah, i dont like pronoun/subordinator, and conjunction seems strange too.

a is a particle of attribution, kefyak?

edit: upon akimmimg your links, it appears that complementizer covers both f words and a itself.

and I agree that a s often used as a relative pronoun. are there any times where it is not? hmmm

[Lance R. Casey]

and I agree that a s often used as a relative pronoun. are there any times where it is not? hmmm

Fìpo lu vrrtep a mì sokx atsleng, for example. Translations often make it seem like a is to be equated with a general-purpose relative pronoun, but the grammatical context in Na'vi is quite different. Remember that it is fundamentally the same thing as the attributive adjective affix. So:

a is a particle of attribution, kefyak?

Just this.

[Tirea Aean]

and I agree that a s often used as a relative pronoun. are there any times where it is not? hmmm

Fìpo lu vrrtep a mì sokx atsleng, for example. Translations often make it seem like a is to be equated with a general-purpose relative pronoun, but the grammatical context in Na'vi is quite different. Remember that it is fundamentally the same thing as the attributive adjective affix. So:

a is a particle of attribution, kefyak?

Just this.

ahh yes thank you for reassuring me of my original thoughts

[Carborundum]

and I agree that a s often used as a relative pronoun. are there any times where it is not? hmmm

Fìpo lu vrrtep a mì sokx atsleng, for example.

Why is a not a relative pronoun here, exactly? Is there not an implied lu in the relative clause?

[wm.annis]

a is a particle of attribution, kefyak?

Just this.

I also strongly recommend calling it this.  It's not a pronoun.  Pronouns can take case markers, a cannot.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Fìpo lu vrrtep a mì sokx atsleng

Why is a even needed here? The meaning of this sentence seems quite clear without the a.

I agree with TA and others that a is best called a particle of attribution. As for a pronoun function, I cannot ever recall seeing this word (or the F-words for that matter) even being used like a pronoun. As for what to officially call the F-words, I will leave that to those with more linguistic knowledge than I.

[wm.annis]

Fìpo lu vrrtep a mì sokx atsleng

Why is a even needed here? The meaning of this sentence seems quite clear without the a.

It's perfectly clear in English and a number of European languages.  But this construction — I like to call it the "man on the moon" construction — is not grammatical in a number of the world's languages.  Here the phrase "on the moon" is an attribute modifying the noun "man," and in some languages you have to use some overt marking to show that it's being used that way.  Na'vi is one such language.  Just be glad it's not like some of the Tzezic languages which use a parallel system of adposition marking when the phrase is being used attributively.

Because of Na'vi's free word order, the use of a in "man on the moon" constructions reduces certain kinds of ambiguity that could otherwise occur very often.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Fìpo lu vrrtep a mì sokx atsleng

Why is a even needed here? The meaning of this sentence seems quite clear without the a.

It's perfectly clear in English and a number of European languages.  But this construction — I like to call it the "man on the moon" construction — is not grammatical in a number of the world's languages.  Here the phrase "on the moon" is an attribute modifying the noun "man," and in some languages you have to use some overt marking to show that it's being used that way.  Na'vi is one such language.  Just be glad it's not like some of the Tzezic languages which use a parallel system of adposition marking when the phrase is being used attributively.

Because of Na'vi's free word order, the use of a in "man on the moon" constructions reduces certain kinds of ambiguity that could otherwise occur very often.

I think I get whay you are saying, but this is hard to grasp. What kind of construction would trigger such a use of a? How about these examples?

slamele oe (a) mì kilvan

ta'lengean lu po (a) hu pil atun

mefo tamìran (a) rofa txampay

maweypey taronyu (a) fkip ayvul utralä

[Tirea Aean]

Fìpo lu vrrtep a mì sokx atsleng

Why is a even needed here? The meaning of this sentence seems quite clear without the a.

It's perfectly clear in English and a number of European languages.  But this construction — I like to call it the "man on the moon" construction — is not grammatical in a number of the world's languages.  Here the phrase "on the moon" is an attribute modifying the noun "man," and in some languages you have to use some overt marking to show that it's being used that way.  Na'vi is one such language.  Just be glad it's not like some of the Tzezic languages which use a parallel system of adposition marking when the phrase is being used attributively.

Because of Na'vi's free word order, the use of a in "man on the moon" constructions reduces certain kinds of ambiguity that could otherwise occur very often.

I think I get whay you are saying, but this is hard to grasp. What kind of construction would trigger such a use of a? How about these examples?

slamele oe (a) mì kilvan

ta'lengean lu po (a) hu pil atun //probably this one

mefo tamìran (a) rofa txampay

maweypey taronyu (a) fkip ayvul utralä //and this one.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Why would you use a in examples 2 and 4, but not 1 and 3?

[Tirea Aean]

because 1 and 3 are using simple prepositional phrases.

1: I swam in the river.

there's no attribution there to be made. "in the river" is a standard prepositional phrase, not an attribution to "oe"

3: They walked beside the ocean.

Again, no attribution, same type of case as 1.

2: he <--{with the red facial stripes} is blue.

There is an attribution there. The phrase is elaborating on he. in much the same way an attributive adjective would to a noun.

4: the hunter <--{up among the branches of the tree} is patient.

Same case as 2; There is attribution/elaboration going on. but this one MIGHT be arguable.

['Oma Tirea]

It seems a is used in the event of verbs that aren't plain intransitive.  For plain intransitive verbs (unlike lu, for instance), a will be unnecessary because the clause will be interpreted as if there were no a, alu, a standard prepositional phrase rather than an attribution.

[Tirea Aean]

It seems a is used in the event of verbs that aren't plain intransitive.  For plain intransitive verbs (unlike lu, for instance), a will be unnecessary because the clause will be interpreted as if there were no a, alu, a standard prepositional phrase rather than an attribution.

could you elaborate with a few examples? Im not sure I follow

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Irayo, ma meylan This is finally beginning to make sense! It is the result of a subtle word order thing, where the preposition at the end is an attribution to the sense of the entire left side of the sentence. This is another good example of something one must consider in order to 'think like a Na'vi'.