Combining Our Efforts II

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì ma smuk.  I have a question related to numbers that came to mind this morning.  We know how to say "three skypeople did X," but how would we say "three of the skypeople did X"?  I know the difference may seem trivial, but consider something a little more complicated:

"Seven hunters went into the forest, but only three of them returned."

What do you think, ma smuk?

[Kemaweyan]

Fpìl oel futa zene fko sivar lì'ut a san takip sìk: Kinä taronyu kamä nemfa na'rìng, slä nì'aw pxey takip fo tolätxaw. Kefyak?

[Kì'eyawn]

Tewti, oel fpìl futa livu ngaru tìyawr, ma Kemaweyan.  Irayo =)

[Kì'eyawn]

...So now i've thought of another number question:

We have 'awlo (once) and melo (twice); can we expect a *pxeylo/pxelo (thrice)?  In English, "thrice" is considered archaic, and there are no dedicated words if you go higher—you'd just say something occurred "four times," for example.  So, how high does this -lo construct go?  And above that limit, what expression takes its place?

[Plumps]

Kinä taronyu kamä nemfa na'rìng, ....

Kxawm kinäa taronyu fu taronyu akinä ? Oel fparmìl futa fkol kin -a- alahe ayholpxayhu...

[kewnya txamew'itan]

...So now i've thought of another number question:

We have 'awlo (once) and melo (twice); can we expect a *pxeylo/pxelo (thrice)?  In English, "thrice" is considered archaic, and there are no dedicated words if you go higher—you'd just say something occurred "four times," for example.  So, how high does this -lo construct go?  And above that limit, what expression takes its place?

No way to tell.

Kinä taronyu kamä nemfa na'rìng, ....

Kxawm kinäa taronyu fu taronyu akinä ? Oel fparmìl futa fkol kin -a- alahe ayholpxayhu...

I was thinking the same thing, also on pxey of course.

Also, that pxeya takip fo tolätxaw construction doesn't work, that would mean returned from among three hunters, the takip isn't needed.

I'd probably just say: kinäa taronyu kamä nemfa na'rìng slä pxisaronyu tolätxaw instead, with a clear implication that they are from the same group. Also, I'm not sure that we can use nì'aw like that, nì'aw is literally one-ly so, has the same etymology as only, however the only we use here is a seperate lexeme more like merely, possible nì'it or nìhol would be more accurate.

[Kemaweyan]

Kinä taronyu kamä nemfa na'rìng, ....

Kxawm kinäa taronyu fu taronyu akinä ? Oel fparmìl futa fkol kin -a- alahe ayholpxayhu...

Ngaru tìyawr, slä nìawnomum aa -> a sì äa -> ä. Tafral san kìnä taronyu sìk fu san taronyu akinä sìk lu eyawr

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Kinä taronyu kamä nemfa na'rìng, ....

Kxawm kinäa taronyu fu taronyu akinä ? Oel fparmìl futa fkol kin -a- alahe ayholpxayhu...

Ngaru tìyawr, slä nìawnomum aa -> a sì äa -> ä. Tafral san kìnä taronyu sìk fu san taronyu akinä sìk lu eyawr

I knew aa went to a but when did we find out about äa?

[Kemaweyan]

Oel ke tsun rivun, slä lam oer fwa lamu tengtsengmì a teri san aa sìk.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

The closest I can find to that is when this post by Roger stating that Frommer said that vowels contract. äa would need a special mention though because, unlike the obvious vowel contractions, it has two different vowels.

[Lance R. Casey]

Actually, the ruling we have is that äa and aä are "unstable", but "allowed".

[Kemaweyan]

Ha tsun fko sivar mefya'oti, kefyak? San kinäa taronyu sìk sì san kìnä taronyu sìk lu eyawr

[kewnya txamew'itan]

kinäa is correct, but eithe kinä or kina would be more likely to be what you'd hear in coversation. Frommer didn't say which way it would contract when it did. I also assume that the same rule would apply to ìi/iì as does to äa/aä.

[Kemaweyan]

Tsun fko sivung fìtìpawmit fìtseng

[Kì'eyawn]

...So now i've thought of another number question:

We have 'awlo (once) and melo (twice); can we expect a *pxeylo/pxelo (thrice)?  In English, "thrice" is considered archaic, and there are no dedicated words if you go higher—you'd just say something occurred "four times," for example.  So, how high does this -lo construct go?  And above that limit, what expression takes its place?

No way to tell.

Kinä taronyu kamä nemfa na'rìng, ....

Kxawm kinäa taronyu fu taronyu akinä ? Oel fparmìl futa fkol kin -a- alahe ayholpxayhu...

I was thinking the same thing, also on pxey of course.

Also, that pxeya takip fo tolätxaw construction doesn't work, that would mean returned from among three hunters, the takip isn't needed.

I'd probably just say: kinäa taronyu kamä nemfa na'rìng slä pxisaronyu tolätxaw instead, with a clear implication that they are from the same group. Also, I'm not sure that we can use nì'aw like that, nì'aw is literally one-ly so, has the same etymology as only, however the only we use here is a seperate lexeme more like merely, possible nì'it or nìhol would be more accurate.

Your point about nì'aw is well taken, ma kemeoauniaea.  And yes, your sentence eliminates the problem for this specific example; but still, i'd like to know how (if possible) to form a construct that says "three of seven Xs," or variations on that theme.

Also, tangentially, i too am interested to see what the verdict will be regarding äa and ìi.  I agree that these will probably result in contraction.

In any case, fìtìpängkxori atxantsan ayngaru irayo seiyi oe nìtxan, ma smuk.  Ayngeyä aylì'ufa oe sleru kanu nì'ul.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

For the three of seven, I've just had a thought, depending on some of the functions of a genitive in na'vi, it would be possible to say 3 of the seven hunters: pxefo kinäa taronyuyä.

[Kì'eyawn]

Tsasäfpìl sìlronsem leiu, ma kemeoauniaea, ulte oeru fì'u lam sìltsan.  Still, i would like to hear from Karyu Pawl—first on the details of the genitive.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Tsasäfpìl sìlronsem leiu, ma kemeoauniaea, ulte oeru fì'u lam sìltsan.  Still, i would like to hear from Karyu Pawl—first on the details of the genitive.

I agree, I'm just throwing out another tentative suggestion.



Anyway, a few questions have come from this:

Can nì'aw be used to mean only/merely or does it just mean only/on its own?

What functions other than possessive does the na'vi genitive have?

We can has ruling on äa/aä and ìi/iì when they do decay (even if this isn't strictly correct)?

[Swoka Swizaw]

kinäa is correct, but eithe kinä or kina would be more likely to be what you'd hear in coversation. Frommer didn't say which way it would contract when it did. I also assume that the same rule would apply to ìi/iì as does to äa/aä.

I sent him an email about this EXACT issue; he never returned a thing.

BTW, where is he, anyway? We haven't received an update in sometime. I hope he's well.

[Plumps]

Finals, I guess ... and he is a busy man, after all


I'd like a confirmation on the usage of txan for temporal concepts – I stumbled across this in the Na'vi Nì'aw section. I was of the opinion that txan would mean »much (time)« / »long (period of time)« no matter what the temporal word was. So, when I wanted to say »many years«, I used txana ayzìsìt. It didn't occur to me that it could also be pxay. But I don't trust these countable/uncountable rules that apply for English, German (and other languages as well?) ...