Why is this correct?

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

From Horen:

6.9.2.1. English often uses gerunds to nominalize a phrase ("running a marathon is difficult").
In Na'vi such clause nominalization is handled with fì'u or tsa'u (§6.18.4), fwa yom teylut 'o' lu
eating teylu is fun.

The highlighted sentence starts with the subjective attribution marker fwa, and is understood to mean fì'u a. Yet, we have an object in this sentence marked with the patientive case teylut. Doestn't there need to be an agentive case at the beginning of the sentence instead of a subjective case? fula seems logical, but I don't think it would be right, either.

And then, somehow, they pull a gerund out of that, but that might be by meaning rather than structure.

[Tirea Aean]

From Horen:

6.9.2.1. English often uses gerunds to nominalize a phrase ("running a marathon is difficult").
In Na'vi such clause nominalization is handled with fì'u or tsa'u (§6.18.4), fwa yom teylut 'o' lu

eating teylu is fun.

The highlighted sentence starts with the subjective attribution marker fwa, and is understood to mean fì'u a. Yet, we have an object in this sentence marked with the patientive case teylut. Doestn't there need to be an agentive case at the beginning of the sentence instead of a subjective case? fula seems logical, but I don't think it would be right, either.

I don't see how this relates to participles in any way, but...

Think of it this way:

Fwa ((fkol)) yom teylut lu 'o'

Because You are saying:

Fì'u lu 'o'.

This thing is fun.

Fì'u a ((fkol)) yom teylut lu 'o'.

This ((unidintified generic agent)) eat teylu thing is fun.

You are saying

The very action which is to eat teylu, is fun.

NOT

This thing which eats teylu is fun.

Even so, there is no issue with case. I've actually mailed Paul about this type of ambiguity with fwa and got a partial answer. When I get the whole answer, I will post.

[Prrton]

'O' lu fwa (fkol) yom teylut.

[Tirea Aean]

'O' lu fwa (fkol) yom teylut.

And this too. Same thing, different word order. It's just the idea that you can't use arguments with gerunds in Na'vi. you can say tìyusom lu 'o' but Not *tìyusom teylut lu 'o'. You have to say what Prrton said, or a different acceptable word order of that:

Fwa yom teylut lu 'o', for example.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Ah! The missing unidentified subject! In Prrton's example, the missing subject is more 'obvious'. In the one in Horen, it is much more ambiguous. I get 'that eating' from Fwa yom.., rather that 'that one eat' from that construction. I hope K. Pawl does clear this up at some point. Although I am better at picking them out now, hidden subjects or objects still do confuse me.

Ma Tirea Aean, you must have seen that post almost the moment I posted it, because I had put (Participles) in the title and removed it less than a minute later. I will post the participle question separately.

[Tirea Aean]

Ah! The missing unidentified subject! In Prrton's example, the missing subject is more 'obvious'. In the one in Horen, it is much more ambiguous. I get 'that eating' from Fwa yom.., rather that 'that one eat' from that construction. I hope K. Pawl does clear this up at some point. Although I am better at picking them out now, hidden subjects or objects still do confuse me.

This is why I hate "fwa = that". It does not (always) mean that. So now, EVERY TIME someone sees fwa or futa or something, they automatically parse as that:

(...is something missing? this seems like a fragment... O_O)...that eating a teylu is fun.

but it should really be parsed like this:

fwa yom teylut lu 'o'

fì'u <-{a yom teylut} lu 'o'

This eating teylu thing is fun. -> Eating Teylu is fun.

The whole "missing subject" thing... When you say "Eating teylu is fun"... There is no missing subject (in English). it's: {Eating teylu} is fun. But since you nominalise verb phrases in Na'vi by using fwa/futa/furia..., you say {fwa yom teylut} lu 'o'. And the person eating teylu is quite irrelevant here. It's unnecessary information. So it's left out. And whenever that happens, it's pretty much automatically assumed to be fko or fkol.

Ma Tirea Aean, you must have seen that post almost the moment I posted it, because I had put (Participles) in the title and removed it less than a minute later. I will post the participle question separately.

Yeah.... I saw this and started replying, the nano second after it was posted. You know me.