Why did we think that -iv- is necessary with tsnì?

[Kemaweyan]

Actually I have not found any official rule that infix -iv- always is necessary in a clause after tsnì. However I found an example where -iv- is not used:

 Set srefey oe tsnì tsampongu tätxaw maw txon'ong.

It's from Pawl's blog: http://naviteri.org/2011/02/new-vocabulary-part-2/ Also there is an example that -iv- is not necessary with sìlpey (from first Pawl's speech to LN community):

 Sìlpey oe, layu oeru ye'rìn sìltsana fmawn a tsun oe ayngaru tivìng.

I think in other examples (with -iv-) it's used because the sentence just needs it (like «'ivong Na'vi» or «txon lefpom livu») and tsnì or sìlpey doesn't matter there. So what do you think about this?

[Blue Elf]

Good question - some time ago I tried to do some research, but.... no result.
In our Czech grammar we have written this (sorry if my translation uses wrong linguistic terms):
1/ objective subordinate clauses are connected with intrasitive verbs by "tsnì".... subjunctive is required
but
2/ in subordinate clause after "tsnì" can be used subjunctive to express hypothetical action, but it is not required. But if subordinate clause is connected to the modal verb, which requires subjunctive, you must use it. So subjunctive usage depends not on "tsnì", but on relation between verbs in main clause and subclause.
(good question for Tanri, where these information come from...)

Both statements say something different.... And horen leNa'vi:
6.19.7. Tsnì. The conjunction tsnì that introduces some kinds of report clause which cause the
verb to take the subjunctive, ätxäle si tsnì livu oheru Uniltaron I respectfully request the Dream
Hunt, sìlpey oe tsnì fìtìoeyktìng law livu ngaru set I hope that this explanation is clear to you now.
The verb determines the subjunctive, or the construction?

So IMHO we do not have exact rules about tsnì....

[Plumps]

This is from a discussion in the first stages of the LEP.

Kì'eyawn (then-Chair) asked Frommer:

questions on tsnì, SBJ vs. EVID:  Frommer says it's not tsnì but the verb that triggers use of the subjunctive. [...]

Hìtxoa, but that's all I can give you.

[Tanri]

Sìlpey oe, layu oeru ye'rìn sìltsana fmawn a tsun oe ayngaru tivìng.

This particular example separates sìlpey into its own clause, totally independent from the rest, just like in english example "She arrive soon, I hope".
Thus no subjunctive is required.

1/ objective subordinate clauses are connected with intrasitive verbs by "tsnì".... subjunctive is required

I think this line was forgotten from the early days of our document, when everybody thought that ‹iv› is required after tsnì.

2/ in subordinate clause after "tsnì" can be used subjunctive to express hypothetical action, but it is not required. But if subordinate clause is connected to the modal verb, which requires subjunctive, you must use it. So subjunctive usage depends not on "tsnì", but on relation between verbs in main clause and subclause.

Again very good find, ma Blue Elf.
The notice about non-requirement of ‹iv› after tsnì is consistent through the time, but the mention about modal verbs sounds strange to me. I will closer look at history of this part, and we can discuss this today on NgayNume session.
In this moment, I am inclined to remove notice about modal verbs, and leave only something like "Subjunctive is not required after tsnì, but its usage depends of the relation between verbs in the main and subordinate clauses, more precisely when the action of the subordinate verb is hypothetical".

Please, keep in mind that this is no official nor confirmed statement, only my proposal to fix this text, now apparently over-speculated.
I have no excuse for existence of such texts other than they are very old, so I memorized their message at the beginning and not checked them anymore.

Currently, Horen leNa'vi is correct - we do not have official rules regarding tsnì and ‹iv›, although we can track some pattern from available examples.

[Kemaweyan]

in subordinate clause after "tsnì" can be used subjunctive to express hypothetical action, but it is not required.

I think so too.

Sìlpey oe, layu oeru ye'rìn sìltsana fmawn a tsun oe ayngaru tivìng.

This particular example separates sìlpey into its own clause, totally independent from the rest, just like in english example "She arrive soon, I hope".
Thus no subjunctive is required.

Pawl said that we always could replace tsnì with comma and the meaning does not change. So there is no difference between «sìlpey oe tsnì ...» and «sìlpey oe, ...».