Author Topic: A new participle infix: ‹awn›  (Read 3807 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tsrräfkxätu

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • Karma: 28
  • pic by chikinrise.deviantart.com (cropped)
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2010, 07:05:00 pm »
But there may be more idiomatic solutions we'll have to wait on Frommer for.

Or simply ask for free. :D
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

Offline Kì'eyawn

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1779
  • Karma: 32
  • Oeru syaw "tigermind" kop.
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2010, 11:10:32 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.

Oel ngati kame, ma Altayir.
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

Offline Hawnuyu atxen

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 5507
  • Karma: 36
  • 'aweyktan OPa'liatanevengä
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2010, 05:39:33 am »
It would be so much easier if we could say (as i know it is incorrect/forbidden):
Ke'u lu ngay, frakem lu tawnung.

Quote
Oel ngati kame, ma Altayir.

With the PE he might learn some na'vi too ::) ;)
"Hrrap rä'ä si olo'ur smuktuä." ; "Ke'u ke lu ngay. Frakemit tung." (Assassin's Creed)

Nikre tsa'usìn!

Offline Prrton

  • Eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2799
  • Karma: 105
  • Rutxe, fmivi. Ftxey fra'u eyawr fuke, ke tsranten.
    • Pìlok leNa'vi a ro MaSempul.org
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2010, 02:51:18 pm »
It would be so much easier if we could say (as i know it is incorrect/forbidden):
Ke'u lu ngay, frakem lu tawnung.

Ke'u lu ngay, frakemit tung.

There is a silent «fkol» in there that makes this the closest thing Na'vi has to "passive". It's not very IndoEuropean, but quite elegant in its simplicity.

The pattern is:

Promote the accusative noun to the head (most prominent area) of the sentence or clause and leave out the ergative "agent" if he/she/it is not needed. If completely "missing" the agent is assumed to be «fkol».

  [Nothing is true, (one) allows every action.]

PS: I think of it as "Yoda passive".

« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 03:02:13 pm by Prrton »

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 #44 on: April 30, 2010, 03:01:18 pm »
The thing is the agent is rarely "completely" missing...  It could be misunderstood as coming from context, so unless the context is already "fkol" as the agent, it should probably be said I'd imagine.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Offline Prrton

  • Eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2799
  • Karma: 105
  • Rutxe, fmivi. Ftxey fra'u eyawr fuke, ke tsranten.
    • Pìlok leNa'vi a ro MaSempul.org
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2010, 03:10:56 pm »
The thing is the agent is rarely "completely" missing...  It could be misunderstood as coming from context, so unless the context is already "fkol" as the agent, it should probably be said I'd imagine.

It only "hurts" to say it if it messes up flow or rhythm of the sentence.

I find it rather easy to "leave things out" in Na'vi that we couldn't do without in English because that's very common in Japanese. Once the topics and/or agents are understood from the context, it's much more NATURAL to leave them out.

However, in this particular case it does make sense to stick «fkol» in because (lacking context) that «tung» comes across as a strong candidate for an imperative.

Offline Kemaweyan

  • Eywatsyìp
  • ******
  • *
  • Posts: 14675
  • ua Ukraine
  • Karma: 240
  • Swirä letxon
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2010, 03:16:55 pm »
Ke'u lu ngay, frakemit tung.

Ke'u ke lu ngay... Oeru tìyawr, kefyak?
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Offline tsrräfkxätu

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • Karma: 28
  • pic by chikinrise.deviantart.com (cropped)
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2010, 03:54:00 pm »
Oh, this is excellent, ma Prrton! Exactly the kind of elegant solution I was looking for. :D I know that wm.annis offered a very similar phrase, but I are a blonde, and keep forgetting about the possibility of elision, despite the fact that in Hungarian that's often the only correct way.

However, I agree with Kemaweyan in that it would be even better with the double negative.
Ke'u ke lu ngay...


Still, this wouldn't be my post if I didn't make an eagle-eyed (and potentially incorrect) observation regarding this:
[...] Promote the accusative noun to the head (most prominent area) of the sentence [...]

Here's what Pawl said about this earlier.
Quote from: PF in LN Wiki – Canon
The only revision I made was to change the word order to place more emphasis on the "mine":

Ngeyä kxetse lu oeru.

(The end of the sentence is where the "punch" comes.)

From this I understand that the most prominent area is the end of the sentence.
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

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 #48 on: April 30, 2010, 06:13:10 pm »
That's to really give that an extra *punch*.  Like in English if you said a word with extra emphasis.  What prrton is referring to is just shifting the main focus, which also per frommer tends to come from the first position.

Tsakemit fkol tung - That is allowed
Tung fkol tsakemit - *THAT* is allowed
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Offline Prrton

  • Eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2799
  • Karma: 105
  • Rutxe, fmivi. Ftxey fra'u eyawr fuke, ke tsranten.
    • Pìlok leNa'vi a ro MaSempul.org
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #49 on: May 01, 2010, 01:27:23 pm »
I agree with tsmukan Omängum Fra'uti. By putting (most prominent area) in parentheses, I didn't mean that that is always the head. I should have written (or the 'most prominent area') because in Altaic word order, sometime that doesn't come first. In Eri's 'tail' advert campaign, I see why K. Pawl felt that the 'end' was best for the *punch*, but as a general rule, he tends to put things that are more important in earlier on. I've almost never seen a TOPIC(ìri) come late in the game, for example.

And, K.P. specifically said (to me. Sorry I don't have it in writing) about this construct that the "thing possessed" should be PROMOTED (typically to the front of the action). In the practice of writing (on average), I think that would more likely be earlier on. In conversation (more like what an ad slogan would be too), that position of promotion could be elsewhere.

The point is to HIGHLIGHT the noun in the accusative (-t, -ti, -it) wherever you the speaker think that is.

      Flewit peyä näk reypayìt a vrrtepìl frarmìp.

~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and the double negative is good ("very good only").  ;)  BUT, it's not required, either, according to my understanding.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 01:32:36 pm by Prrton »

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 #50 on: May 01, 2010, 02:25:32 pm »
what makes you say its not required?  in situations that call for it, the impression that I got is that grammatically it is required.  However its ambiguous if it would be used with the copula.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Offline tsrräfkxätu

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • Karma: 28
  • pic by chikinrise.deviantart.com (cropped)
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #51 on: May 01, 2010, 03:47:40 pm »
I wanted to ask the same thing. :D It would seem to me that the logic of negation is a very fundamental piece of a language's grammar, and if double negatives are allowed then they are, in fact, also required. Then again, passive in Na’vi isn't absolute either, and the whole language is very permissive, so whatever...
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 #52 on: May 01, 2010, 04:02:46 pm »
I wanted to ask the same thing. :D It would seem to me that the logic of negation is a very fundamental piece of a language's grammar, and if double negatives are allowed then they are, in fact, also required.

Plenty of natural languages allow double negation but don't require it, for example, ancient Greek.
'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 #53 on: May 01, 2010, 04:46:44 pm »
It wouldn't surprise me to see Na'vi fall into that category as well...  But did you get the impression from the wording that Paul used that the double negative was required, or just that he was recommending it in that situation?
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Offline Prrton

  • Eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2799
  • Karma: 105
  • Rutxe, fmivi. Ftxey fra'u eyawr fuke, ke tsranten.
    • Pìlok leNa'vi a ro MaSempul.org
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #54 on: May 02, 2010, 02:13:34 pm »
It wouldn't surprise me to see Na'vi fall into that category as well...  But did you get the impression from the wording that Paul used that the double negative was required, or just that he was recommending it in that situation?

Perhaps I had lost the sense of the original meaning that was being sought. I was focused on the passive aspect, more than the negation of the first half when I first commented on this.

   Ke'u lu ngay, frakemit tung.

Is «Ke'u lu ngay» supposed to be "nothing is real" or "nothing is true"?

That seems perfectly valid to me.

   But, «Ke lu ke'u a ngay (lu)» might be my preferred translation for that.

Spanish allows double negation but does not require it.

  - Hay nada que puedes decir... There's nothing that you can say...
  - No hay nada que puedes decir... There's NOTHING that you can say...
  - No hay nada que nadie puede decir... There's NOTHING that ANYONE can say...

English also allows double (and triple) negatives. They just don't happen to be blessed by the establishment.

  - I ain't got n'more time to waste on nobody the likes o' you.
  - I don't have any more time to waste with anyone of your ilk.

The speaker is "fed up" with the behavior of the listener and is precluding the possibility of future intercourse.

The core *meaning* is the same in both sentences. The register is quite different but completely mutually intelligible (at least in one direction). The "ain't" register speaker might struggle a bit with the "fancy talk" à la "ilk."

I've gotten the sense from K. Pawl that double (and triple) negation in Na'vi is allowed (and in many cases preferred), but not required semantically in all cases. I've been using it to STRENGTHEN negativity, but sometimes the most subtle, quiet message is the most powerful.

Maybe my Spanish accent is stronger than I think.

     ;)

Offline Tawtakuk

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
  • Karma: 16
  • kxangangang!
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #55 on: May 02, 2010, 02:50:27 pm »
I think we really need a clarification from Karyu Pawl here.

I myself don't recall any canonical sentence calling for a double negative but not having it. That leads me to the opinion that Na'vi negative concord indeed is grammatically required, as is the case with Slavic languages. By that logic, a statement like "Ke'u lu ngay" would be nonsensical as it would say something along the lines of "There IS some thing that is true and that thing is the/a no-thing", instead of the English "Nothing is true" you native speakers tend to see there ;)

However, judging by the general level of flexibility in Na'vi (word order, subordination, pro-drop, tense/aspect drop), I agree with wm.annis and omängum fra'uti that the recommended-but-not-required approach would actually fit the language better.
01000011 01011010 00100000 01001101 01101111 01100100 01100101 01110010 01100001 01110100 01101111 01110010 00000000

Offline Prrton

  • Eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2799
  • Karma: 105
  • Rutxe, fmivi. Ftxey fra'u eyawr fuke, ke tsranten.
    • Pìlok leNa'vi a ro MaSempul.org
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2010, 04:55:13 pm »
I think we really need a clarification from Karyu Pawl here.

I myself don't recall any canonical sentence calling for a double negative but not having it. That leads me to the opinion that Na'vi negative concord indeed is grammatically required, as is the case with Slavic languages. By that logic, a statement like "Ke'u lu ngay" would be nonsensical as it would say something along the lines of "There IS some thing that is true and that thing is the/a no-thing", instead of the English "Nothing is true" you native speakers tend to see there ;)

However, judging by the general level of flexibility in Na'vi (word order, subordination, pro-drop, tense/aspect drop), I agree with wm.annis and omängum fra'uti that the recommended-but-not-required approach would actually fit the language better.

I've asked. Will post reply here or separately in this area when/if it arrives.

By "calling for" do you mean "where one would expect based on one's understanding of the rules"? If they (double negatives) are optional (truly optional) then they are never technically "called for" based on my understanding of "called for."

And I'm not exactly sure what «ke'u» means either. It could be as much of a philosophical question as a grammatical one.

  Kea 'u lu ngay.
  Lu ngay 'u ake.
  Ke lu kea 'u a ngay lu.
  Ngay a 'u lu ke'u.


Oel fpìl futa fìtìpawmìri ral a lu txeleuo ke lu horenteri lì'fyaoyä nì'aw.  ;)

« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 01:09:37 am by Prrton »

Offline Prrton

  • Eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2799
  • Karma: 105
  • Rutxe, fmivi. Ftxey fra'u eyawr fuke, ke tsranten.
    • Pìlok leNa'vi a ro MaSempul.org
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #57 on: May 02, 2010, 11:07:58 pm »
I think we really need a clarification from Karyu Pawl here.

I myself don't recall any canonical sentence calling for a double negative but not having it. That leads me to the opinion that Na'vi negative concord indeed is grammatically required, as is the case with Slavic languages. By that logic, a statement like "Ke'u lu ngay" would be nonsensical as it would say something along the lines of "There IS some thing that is true and that thing is the/a no-thing", instead of the English "Nothing is true" you native speakers tend to see there ;)

However, judging by the general level of flexibility in Na'vi (word order, subordination, pro-drop, tense/aspect drop), I agree with wm.annis and omängum fra'uti that the recommended-but-not-required approach would actually fit the language better.

I've asked. Will post reply here or separately in this area when/if it arrives.


Tì'eyng poläheiem ulte tsakoren lu law nìwotx.

Offline Tawtakuk

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
  • Karma: 16
  • kxangangang!
Re: A new participle infix: ‹awn›
« Reply #58 on: May 03, 2010, 12:00:18 am »
... and the off-topic is resolved :) Thanks for asking that question, and I am truly amazed how quickly we got the response.
01000011 01011010 00100000 01001101 01101111 01100100 01100101 01110010 01100001 01110100 01101111 01110010 00000000

 

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