Author Topic: A new participle infix: ‹awn›  (Read 3806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kì'eyawn

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1779
  • Karma: 32
  • Oeru syaw "tigermind" kop.
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2010, 04:18:27 pm »
I have to admit, i'm pretty much limited to English when it comes to understanding fine points of grammar; but i think i see the difference between what i thought <awn> is and what it actually is. Irayo ayngeyä srungìri, ma smuktu.
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

Offline omängum fra'uti

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3804
  • Karma: 127
  • Na'vi's first grammar nazi
    • Pronounced Na'vi words
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2010, 04:20:12 pm »
"Died" would probably be something more like *tusolerkup or *tusalmerkup...  But I don't think we've been told if/how the participle infix can be combined with tense or aspect.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Offline Talis

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 901
  • Karma: 57
    • Meine Gedichte
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2010, 04:36:49 pm »
Well, so it's really passive?
Like... I don't know how to say in English... maybe like this:
"You have been seen" // "Du wurdest gesehen"
"You have been hit" // "Du wurdest getroffen" ?

Or is it different to the German "Passiv" ?
Someone said something like "Partizip II"... but I think this is really more like <us> ...
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 04:41:59 pm by Talis »

Swoka Swizaw

  • Guest
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2010, 04:48:50 pm »
"Died" would probably be something more like *tusolerkup or *tusalmerkup...  But I don't think we've been told if/how the participle infix can be combined with tense or aspect.

I absoutely concede that most, especially yourself, know more about Na'vi than I, but when it comes to the examples that you've given, is it really essential that when translating Na'vi to English to be so literal? If Na'vi is bound to points of grammar that are NOT apparent in English, perhaps applying only what English uses is all we can do. If "dead," is not-living - an adjective - in Na'vi, why does that work? Why is rusey "living?" (Sure, rawney would be sort of odd, itself, but still...)

All I am saying is that it doesn't have to be that complicated. Hell, if the perfective and imperfective have to be translated as the English aspects "have **ed" and "**ing," then the active and passive participles might have to be just as we think they should be, until further notice, of course.

Offline omängum fra'uti

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3804
  • Karma: 127
  • Na'vi's first grammar nazi
    • Pronounced Na'vi words
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2010, 04:59:03 pm »
That's why I put the *, it's just a hypothetical construct that would carry similar semantics to the English...  It may not be correct Na'vi at all, and I'm not sure I'd personally ever use it that way.  The die example is probably bad because the semantic meaning is already mostly covered by a different word anyway.  I'm not even sure the past participle in English even words on intransitive verbs...  The only examples I can think of off the top of my head are verbs which have gained transitive meanings.

But you are correct, literal translation is not usually the best.  There may be cases where a past participle would be useful in Na'vi, for sure, but trying to use the best Na'vi grammar to convey the meaning is what's important, especially since there are numerous ways that the same thing in English can be correctly translated to Na'vi, depending on the intended meaning.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Swoka Swizaw

  • Guest
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2010, 08:46:57 pm »
The die example is probably bad because the semantic meaning is already mostly covered by a different word anyway.

Then, may I offer a way that tawnerkup can be used...

We may say that tuserkup outlines the process of death. I feel that tawnerkup could be used to describe the finality of that process; new death. And, kerusey's for things that are long gone, or dead in a figurative sense.

I, equally, concede that such things are all speculative, but, in my head, make the most sense. What do you all think?

Offline omängum fra'uti

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3804
  • Karma: 127
  • Na'vi's first grammar nazi
    • Pronounced Na'vi words
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2010, 08:54:00 pm »
To get that meaning, you have to really redefine what a passive participle is though.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Offline wm.annis

  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3074
  • Karma: 143
  • Translate the meaning, not the words!
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2010, 08:54:52 pm »
I, equally, concede that such things are all speculative, but, in my head, make the most sense. What do you all think?

This seems an over-nice spin on what's basically a grammar question, I'm afraid. ;)

Using the passive participle infix here seems like saying "a deaded yerik" or "the flied man."
'Awa lì'fya ke tam kawkrr.
A Na'vi Reference Grammar

Offline omängum fra'uti

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3804
  • Karma: 127
  • Na'vi's first grammar nazi
    • Pronounced Na'vi words
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2010, 08:57:07 pm »
I, equally, concede that such things are all speculative, but, in my head, make the most sense. What do you all think?

This seems an over-nice spin on what's basically a grammar question, I'm afraid. ;)

Using the passive participle infix here seems like saying "a deaded yerik" or "the flied man."
That is an agreeded point to me.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Swoka Swizaw

  • Guest
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2010, 08:39:05 am »
To get that meaning, you have to really redefine what a passive participle is though.

Help me to See, then - what is it?

I, equally, concede that such things are all speculative, but, in my head, make the most sense. What do you all think?

This seems an over-nice spin on what's basically a grammar question, I'm afraid. ;)

Using the passive participle infix here seems like saying "a deaded yerik" or "the flied man."

Sounds good to me, so long as I'm right... :P
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 08:52:56 am by Swoka Swizaw »

Offline Talis

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 901
  • Karma: 57
    • Meine Gedichte
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2010, 08:49:28 am »
So can somebody tell me: is it like the German "Passiv" or isn't it?  ???  ::)

Quote
a deaded yerik
this seems to me like the German "Passiv" but I'm not quite sure... ^^

Offline omängum fra'uti

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3804
  • Karma: 127
  • Na'vi's first grammar nazi
    • Pronounced Na'vi words
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2010, 02:12:13 pm »
As I understand wm's example of "a deaded yerik" it's showing why it is grammatically wrong with something grammatically wrong in English...   As in something that die was done to (NOT something that itself died) which doesn't really make sense.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Offline Keylstxatsmen

  • Omatikaya
  • ****
  • *
  • Posts: 478
  • Karma: 20
    • Letrra Na'vi
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2010, 04:33:10 pm »
As I understand wm's example of "a deaded yerik" it's showing why it is grammatically wrong with something grammatically wrong in English...   As in something that die was done to (NOT something that itself died) which doesn't really make sense.

That is the real point I think, that this can only be used if the noun modified is the object of the verbal adjective, so a verb like "die" could never be used with <awm>.  "kill" could, "make dead" could if <eyk> and <awm> could be used in the same word but I suspect they can't.

Anyways, long story short (and correct me if I'm wrong) use <awm> with verbs that can be transitive, if the noun is the object of that verb, otherwise use <us>. 

Intransitive:
Deaded yerik = tawnerkupa yerik (not grammatically correct)
Dying yerik =  tuserkupa yerik  ex. The dying yerik howls.  Tuserkupa yerik nguway si.
Dead yerik = keruseya yerik  ex. I eat the dead yerik.  Oel yom keruseya yerikit.

Transitive:
hunting yerik = tusarona yerik  ex. The hunting yerik does not see us.  Tusarona yerikil ke tse'a ayoeti.
hunted yerik = tawnarona yerik  ex. The hunted yerik runs.  Tawnarona yerik tul.
killing yerik = tspusanga yerik ex. Many killing(deadly) yeriks are here. Pxaya yerikil atspusang tok fìtsengit.
killed yerik = tspawnanga yerik ex. I take the killed yerik's heart. Oel munge tspawnanga yerikyä txe'lanit.

Who knows if you can put other tenses in there as well, but I don't think we necessarily NEED that functionality in the language to be understood.

-Keyl

 

Oeru lì'fya leNa'vi prrte’ leiu nìtxan! 

Txo nga new leskxawnga tawtutehu nìNa'vi pivängkxo, oeru 'upxaret fpe' ulte ngaru srungit tayìng oel.  Faylì'ut alor nume 'awsiteng ko!

Swoka Swizaw

  • Guest
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2010, 04:47:03 pm »
Deaded yerik = tawnerkupa yerik (not grammatically correct)
Dying yerik =  tuserkupa yerik  ex. The dying yerik howls.  Tuserkupa yerik nguway si.
Dead yerik = keruseya yerik  ex. I eat the dead yerik.  Oel yom keruseya yerikit.

Well rendered - I get it. I suppose, in my anal-retentive ways, that I just figured that the use of kerusey, being a compound of sorts, was only used because that's all we had to express "death." Tawnerkup appeared more formulaic. But, it's all "understooded" now. ;D

Offline Alìm Tsamsiyu

  • Tute
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Karma: 15
  • Skxawng Makto
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2010, 09:54:41 am »
Why is rusey "living?" (Sure, rawney would be sort of odd, itself, but still...)

Am I incorrect in my understanding of this infix or wouldn't rawney be "live" as in "a live wire" or "a live specimen."

Perhaps even to the point of translating it as the adjective alive (even though that has very similar meaning to "living" in English, it does have its other uses).
Oeyä ayswizawri tswayon alìm ulte takuk nìngay.
My arrows fly far and strike true.

Swoka Swizaw

  • Guest
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2010, 10:10:01 am »
Perhaps even to the point of translating it as the adjective alive (even though that has very similar meaning to "living" in English, it does have its other uses).

Yeah, I thought that, too. It will be intriguing how it all plays out.

Offline wm.annis

  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3074
  • Karma: 143
  • Translate the meaning, not the words!
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2010, 11:29:08 am »
Am I incorrect in my understanding of this infix or wouldn't rawney be "live" as in "a live wire" or "a live specimen."

Perhaps even to the point of translating it as the adjective alive (even though that has very similar meaning to "living" in English, it does have its other uses).

As ‹awn› has been given to us, rawney cannot be correct.  It's like "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" — it's formally correct, but doesn't mean anything.

So, here's a simple sentence:

  Nantangìl taron yerikit A viperwolf hunts a yerik.

In this example we've just got the normal, finite verb form, unmarked in any way.  Na'vi gives us two ways to take this expression and turn parts of it into a noun phrase with a Noun + Adjective.

The active participle allows us to turn the subject and the verb into a noun phrase, nantang atusaron (a hunting viperwolf).

The passive participle allows us to turn the verb and the object into a noun phrase, tawnarona yerik (a being-hunted yerik).

So, an active participle is a sort of "subject adjective" and the passive participle is a sort of "object adjective."  Because an intransitive verb like rey cannot have an object, an object adjective derived from it doesn't really make sense.  For ‹awn› to go into an intransitive verb, its meaning would have to be extended.  This is possible, but Frommer has given us no hint that this might happen.
'Awa lì'fya ke tam kawkrr.
A Na'vi Reference Grammar

Offline Alìm Tsamsiyu

  • Tute
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Karma: 15
  • Skxawng Makto
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2010, 12:48:14 pm »
Ahh.. Tslolam.  Irayo ma wm.annis, ngeyä aylì'ul fì'ut law sleyku.
Oeyä ayswizawri tswayon alìm ulte takuk nìngay.
My arrows fly far and strike true.

Offline tsrräfkxätu

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • Karma: 28
  • pic by chikinrise.deviantart.com (cropped)
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2010, 04:43:53 pm »
How would y’all say everything is permitted?

I came up with frakem lu tawnunga kem, but maybe there's a more elegant solution.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

Offline wm.annis

  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3074
  • Karma: 143
  • Translate the meaning, not the words!
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2010, 05:10:07 pm »
How would y’all say everything is permitted?

Fko tsun frakem sivi.

But there may be more idiomatic solutions we'll have to wait on Frommer for.
'Awa lì'fya ke tam kawkrr.
A Na'vi Reference Grammar

 

Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines | XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, LightStorm Entertainment or The Walt Disney Company.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi