Combining Our Efforts II

Started by omängum fra'uti, March 22, 2010, 02:37:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wm.annis

Verb Form

Are we correctly hearing "tspìmìyang" in the movie for "I was about to kill him?"  If so, can any past infix be used in the first slot, "tspalmìyang, tspamìyang"?  Any future form in the second?  It seems like any aspect or mood marking would be restricted to one slot or the other.  In the context of the rest of the Na'vi verb system something like *tspìyìmang doesn't seem to make sense — but does this have some meaning?

roger

"I'm about to have just killed you" = "you're gonna die now"?

This has not been confirmed, and IMO is a priority to get confirmed.

Plumps

I borrowed roger's formulation from the Mipa ayLì'u teri... Thread. Hope that's okay.

Concerning tok and utterances with adpositions that describe location:

If lu cannot function as to be in a place, then how to say "[noun] is [prep] [location]". Do we need a relative clause for that?




si-constructions and case:

If si-constructions count as intrasitive and the 'normal' direct object gets the dative, how do we treat instances in which there is already a dative, e.g.

"I write you a message"

Can there be a double dative? Is it solved through adpositions or is there another construction?

*oe pamrel si 'upxareru ngaru
*oe pamrel si 'upxareru ne nga
*oe pamrel si fte fpive' 'upxaret ngaru
*oe pamrel si fte ngaru livu 'upxare

wm.annis

Morphosyntax (er, Affixes)

All these rules — fìfrahoren? fìfrayhoren? frafayhoren? (The last seems least likely.)

omängum fra'uti

Here's an interesting one I stumbled across looking through emails today.

Quote from: Paul FrommerTìkangkem atxantsan nang

The implication is that nìtxan is not the only context where nang can be used.  So that begs the question...

What exactly does nang do?  It goes with nìtxan, and apparently txantsan as well.  What else can it be used with?  Can it be taken as a sort of "txan" intensifier?
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Ftiafpi

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on April 07, 2010, 03:02:07 AM
Here's an interesting one I stumbled across looking through emails today.

Quote from: Paul FrommerTìkangkem atxantsan nang

The implication is that nìtxan is not the only context where nang can be used.  So that begs the question...

What exactly does nang do?  It goes with nìtxan, and apparently txantsan as well.  What else can it be used with?  Can it be taken as a sort of "txan" intensifier?

That's how I've kind of been picturing it used.

Prrton

Quote from: Ftiafpi on April 07, 2010, 11:05:43 AM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on April 07, 2010, 03:02:07 AM
Here's an interesting one I stumbled across looking through emails today.

Quote from: Paul FrommerTìkangkem atxantsan nang

The implication is that nìtxan is not the only context where nang can be used.  So that begs the question...

What exactly does nang do?  It goes with nìtxan, and apparently txantsan as well.  What else can it be used with?  Can it be taken as a sort of "txan" intensifier?

That's how I've kind of been picturing it used.

It's my understanding that as long as it's at the very end, it can intensify anything. It just happens to most common in conjunction with «txan»-things because they are setting up intensity in the first place.

Ftiafpi

Quote from: Prrton on April 27, 2010, 01:24:00 PM
Quote from: Ftiafpi on April 07, 2010, 11:05:43 AM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on April 07, 2010, 03:02:07 AM
Here's an interesting one I stumbled across looking through emails today.

Quote from: Paul FrommerTìkangkem atxantsan nang

The implication is that nìtxan is not the only context where nang can be used.  So that begs the question...

What exactly does nang do?  It goes with nìtxan, and apparently txantsan as well.  What else can it be used with?  Can it be taken as a sort of "txan" intensifier?

That's how I've kind of been picturing it used.

It's my understanding that as long as it's at the very end, it can intensify anything. It just happens to most common in conjunction with «txan»-things because they are setting up intensity in the first place.

Well, that drags up a long forgotten conversation. I too agree though, since then I've basically imagined that "nang" adds intensity to any clause it's attached to.

wm.annis

Word Usage

Regarding {lam} (glossed as "seem, appear"): First, can it be used in the sense of "manifest," as in "a ghost appeared?"  Second, how does one say "he seems to be a moron" — {po lam skxawng}, {po lam na/pxel skxawng}, {(oeru) lam fwa po lu skxawng}, {po lam livu skxawng}?

Kì'eyawn

I have another word-usgae question.  The word tätxaw is glossed as "return."  I'm guessing that's in the sense of "The humans returned to Earth."  But does the thing that gets returned to (in this case, 'Rrta) use an adposition, or just the dative case marker?

And, secondly, could we use *teykätxaw to mean "return" in the sense of "He returned Neytiri's bow"?
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

'eylan na'viyä

Verb usage / forms
which modal verbs can be used non modally?

im not shure if its been attestet, but afaik kin can be used non modally
how about: zene, zenke, tsun, new, (...) ?

In my point of view(an non linguistic one) "i need something" is equivalent to "i need to have something" (or with the even more general dative construction in Na'vi) "oe kin livu oeru 'uo". So this have/Dative construction should be (theoretically) applicable to the other modal verbs too

Is that possible? and if, would the cases then work the same way as with lu?
lu oeru fì'u  -  i have this thing
zene oeru fì'u  -  i must have this thing
or else?

'eylan na'viyä

#71
Affixes and Adpositions
if the plural is understood out of the context can you then say fì/tsa instead of fay/tsay ?

wm.annis

Quote from: 'eylan na'viyä on May 11, 2010, 05:37:52 PM
Affixes and Adpositions
if the plural is understood out of the context can you then say fì/tsa instead of fay/tsay ?

This one was already answered by implication.

'eylan na'viyä

Quote from: wm.annis on May 17, 2010, 07:40:53 AM
Quote from: 'eylan na'viyä on May 11, 2010, 05:37:52 PM
Affixes and Adpositions
if the plural is understood out of the context can you then say fì/tsa instead of fay/tsay ?

This one was already answered by implication.

does this also apply for fìme/fìpxe/tsame/tsapxe too? (are these confirmed at all?)
in this case it would be shorter to use fì/tsa.

Kì'eyawn

Quote from: 'eylan na'viyä on May 17, 2010, 08:10:39 AM
Quote from: wm.annis on May 17, 2010, 07:40:53 AM
Quote from: 'eylan na'viyä on May 11, 2010, 05:37:52 PM
Affixes and Adpositions
if the plural is understood out of the context can you then say fì/tsa instead of fay/tsay ?

This one was already answered by implication.

does this also apply for fìme/fìpxe/tsame/tsapxe too? (are these confirmed at all?)
in this case it would be shorter to use fì/tsa.

Kaltxì ma 'eylan na'viyä.

This is complete conjecture on my part, but my guess is that you wouldn't mix prefixes like this.  My guess is that the number prefixes would drop back and become adjectives.

-Oel tse'a pxesawtutet.
-Pesawtute?
-Tsaysawtute apxey.  Ngal ke tse'a pxesawtutet tsatseng srak?

Again, just my guess.
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

wm.annis

Quote from: 'eylan na'viyä on May 17, 2010, 08:10:39 AMdoes this also apply for fìme/fìpxe/tsame/tsapxe too? (are these confirmed at all?)
in this case it would be shorter to use fì/tsa.

There are not confirmed as far as I can tell, but there's no particular reason to expect these to work differently.  It might be shorter, but we have no reason to believe number marking is optional when even the adjective pxay seems to trigger plural marking.

Quote from: tigermind on May 17, 2010, 08:31:10 AMThis is complete conjecture on my part, but my guess is that you wouldn't mix prefixes like this.  My guess is that the number prefixes would drop back and become adjectives.

I don't see any reasons to believe that number marking for dual and trial is somehow fundamentally different morphologically than the plural marker.  I would be stunned if fì-me, tsa-me, etc., aren't correct.

Lance R. Casey

Quote from: wm.annis on May 17, 2010, 11:18:31 AM
It might be shorter, but we have no reason to believe number marking is optional when even the adjective pxay seems to trigger plural marking.

At the same time, however, attributive numbers do not seem to trigger plural marking. Quaint, no?

// Lance R. Casey

wm.annis

Quote from: Lance R. Casey on May 17, 2010, 11:22:03 AMAt the same time, however, attributive numbers do not seem to trigger plural marking. Quaint, no?

I'm not sure I'd call it "quaint."  It's common enough, and doesn't detract from my point — some sort of overt number marking seems to be required in Na'vi.  Sometimes that marking is redundant, as with pxay, sometimes it's more parsimonious, as when numerals are used.

Plumps

Sorry, if this has been answered already. Couldn't find it in a quick scan... If so, please direct me to the source – irayo

Tense/Verb Usage:

When using modal verbs where goes the tense? In the modal itself or in the following verb? Does it matter?
In other words, can you use
fo nayew tsive'a tìkangkemit ahasey ?
»they will want to see the finished work«
or
fo new tsiyeve'a tìkangkemit ahasey ?

kewnya txamew'itan

I'd assume that they're both valid, but with different meanings.

nayew tsive'a = at some point in the future they will want to see
nwe tiyeve'a = they want (now) to see at some point in the future.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's