Combining our efforts

[omängum fra'uti]

If tsamsìyu is not from Cameron, it is maybe because "tsam = war" is not an action, it's a concept. You can be "a person who hunt = taronyu" but not "a person who war = tsamyu".
As far as I can not find contrary examples, I would welcome those you can find. (With "tu" it seems different)

I didn't give tsamyu though, I gave tsamtu.  This is based off reltseotu = artist rather than reltseosiyu.  The -tu suffix is (just like it looks) short for tute, so tsamtu would be literally "War person", like reltseotu is "picture-art-person".

[Edit]: Then from Eytukan words: "tìhawnu" can be the protector(I would see "hawnuyu" here, but can have a non-personal meaning. ex the shield.), and "tìhawnu sì = acting as the protector" and not "protect"? (With Neytiri being omitted because obvious)

But "do/make/be/whatever protection to the clan" and "Protect the clan" are really the same thing...  And the subtitle gave it as "Protect".  (And the subject is omitted because it is a command/request more than anything else.)

As far as the answer vs answering thing...
"Ask me more questions, I enjoy answering!"  Here, saying "answer" instead of "answering" would be incorrect in English.
Pivawm oeru nì'ul sìpawm, tì'useyng oeru prrte' lu!
(Alt w/o gerund form: Pivawm oeru nì'ul sìpawm, 'ereyng a fì'u oeru prrte' lu!)

Even if answer and the gerund answering are the same in Na'vi, that brings up the question of why tìrusey rather than tìrey as a translation of "Living".

[Skyinou]

I didn't give tsamyu though, I gave tsamtu.  This is based off reltseotu = artist rather than reltseosiyu.  The -tu suffix is (just like it looks) short for tute, so tsamtu would be literally "War person", like reltseotu is "picture-art-person".

Someone said in an other thread, that it was then like if "tseo" was given to people by Eywa. Comparing with spe'etu, which is captIVE and then kind of receiver/passive. I can't believe the Na'vi would do the same with "tsam = war", that's just awful!

But "do/make/be/whatever protection to the clan" and "Protect the clan" are really the same thing...  And the subtitle gave it as "Protect".  (And the subject is omitted because it is a command/request more than anything else.)

"protect" and "defend"

As far as the answer vs answering thing...
"Ask me more questions, I enjoy answering!"  Here, saying "answer" instead of "answering" would be incorrect in English.
Pivawm oeru nì'ul sìpawm, tì'useyng oeru prrte' lu!

Here you translate a verb by a noun. lit. "the fact of answering is a pleasure"
Then I think I see the difference you meant: "tì'useyng = the fact of answering" and "tì'eyng = the answer itself"

Even if answer and the gerund answering are the same in Na'vi, that brings up the question of why tìrusey rather than tìrey as a translation of "Living".

Because with just this it seems logical: "tìrey = life" , "rusey = living" then "tìrusey = the fact of living"
"Koren a'Awve tìRuseyä 'Awsiteng" is lit. "the first rule of the fact of living together"

[omängum fra'uti]

Spe'e is also a verb, not a noun, so it's already an exception to what Frommer gave as the usage.

And yes, in English the gerund is a noun form of the verb.  So yes, that's the difference I meant.  I wasn't disagreeing with the usage in life vs living, that would be silly since the words come from Frommer.  I was just saying if it has to use <us> for living, why would other words be different and not have to?  Not that I'm against a little irregularity in the language - it's like the linguistic equivalent of lense flare - something that in the real world is present with attempts to minimize, but in the CG world is purposely added to create realism.  I'd just like to know what is irregular and what is the rules.

[Erimeyz]

it's like the linguistic equivalent of lens flare

awesome

[Kì'eyawn]

Eytukan's last words.  "Omatikayaru tìhawnu sivi"

Maybe it's just a shade of meaning different?  Like, maybe instead of "protect the people," it's more like "keep/make the people safe"...?

[omängum fra'uti]

Right, which comes back to my question...

What is the difference in meaning?

[roger]

We don't know. But hawnu is also glossed "shelter". So perhaps that is more literally protecting s.o. in the sense of shielding them, whereas tìhawnu si might be more abstract, acting as a protector.

[omängum fra'uti]

You may be right

[Kì'eyawn]

We don't know. But hawnu is also glossed "shelter". So perhaps that is more literally protecting s.o. in the sense of shielding them, whereas tìhawnu si might be more abstract, acting as a protector.

That's what i was thinking, that hawnu was the physical act of protecting someone, whereas tìhawnu si would be, erm, make the people safe--that is, make it so that they are safe.

Completely unrelated, but has anybody asked Karyu Pawl to clarify how we use tsnì?  I'm still mightily confused by that one.

[Lance R. Casey]

Completely unrelated, but has anybody asked Karyu Pawl to clarify how we use tsnì?  I'm still mightily confused by that one.

I think of it as that which you use when futa is not possible, because the primary verb is intransitive:

Oel fpìl futa poanìl tskot tìyìng poer
I think that he's about to give the bow to her

Oe ätxäle si tsnì poanìl tskot tivìng poer
I request that he give the bow to her

Oe sìlpey tsnì poanìl tskot tìyevìng poer
I hope that he'll give the bow to her

[kewnya txamew'itan]

But what about fwa then?

I think fwa vs tsnì is on a similar level to na vs pxel.

That said, tsnì seems to be used with "hopey-type-verbs" (the only examples we have are with sìlpey and ätxäle TOON) so it may be used if there is an implied subjunctive in the second clause that wouldn't be clear with a normal modal infinitve <iv>.

[Lance R. Casey]

But what about fwa then?

I think fwa vs tsnì is on a similar level to na vs pxel.

Fwa (fì'u a) is the subjective counterpart to futa (fì'ut a), so it's not used in the same way.

Law lu oeru fwa nga mì reltseo nolume nìtxan
It's clear to me that you've learnt much in visual art
("This thing is clear to me, namely that ...")

Fpìrmìl oel futa aynga natsew tsive'a fi'ut
I was just thinking that you'd want to see this
("I was just thinking this thing, namely that ...")

Ätxäle si tsnì livu oheru Uniltaron
(I) request to have the Dream Hunt
("I request thus: ...")

So, to sum up: futa acts as the object of the primary verb (which must be transitive), fwa acts as the subject of the primary verb (which must not be transitive), and tsnì connects a subordinate clause to an intransitive primary verb. I think someone suggested the derivation tsa+nì: "that-ly", "thus".

[Erimeyz]

That's an excellent explanation of a confusing (and frequently confused) subject.  Is there canonical support for it?

  - Eri

[Lance R. Casey]

That's an excellent explanation of a confusing (and frequently confused) subject.  Is there canonical support for it?

In the sense that this is how these forms are used in all canon occurrences, yes. The general structure is elaborated upon here (Dec 27), including the "namely that" device.

[Kì'eyawn]

Completely unrelated, but has anybody asked Karyu Pawl to clarify how we use tsnì?  I'm still mightily confused by that one.

I think of it as that which you use when futa is not possible, because the primary verb is intransitive:

Oel fpìl futa poanìl tskot tìyìng poer
I think that he's about to give the bow to her

Oe ätxäle si tsnì poanìl tskot tivìng poer
I request that he give the bow to her

Oe sìlpey tsnì poanìl tskot tìyevìng poer
I hope that he'll give the bow to her

Ah, that makes a lot of sense.  Irayo, ma tsmukan.  Okay, i retract my question; Karyu Pawl has quite enough on his plate.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

But what about fwa then?

I think fwa vs tsnì is on a similar level to na vs pxel.

Fwa (fì'u a) is the subjective counterpart to futa (fì'ut a), so it's not used in the same way.

Law lu oeru fwa nga mì reltseo nolume nìtxan
It's clear to me that you've learnt much in visual art
("This thing is clear to me, namely that ...")

Fpìrmìl oel futa aynga natsew tsive'a fi'ut
I was just thinking that you'd want to see this
("I was just thinking this thing, namely that ...")

Ätxäle si tsnì livu oheru Uniltaron
(I) request to have the Dream Hunt
("I request thus: ...")

So, to sum up: futa acts as the object of the primary verb (which must be transitive), fwa acts as the subject of the primary verb (which must not be transitive), and tsnì connects a subordinate clause to an intransitive primary verb. I think someone suggested the derivation tsa+nì: "that-ly", "thus".

Fwa is not subjective. It is not a counterpart to futa at all. Tsnì is also used with intransitive verbs. The subjective counterpart to futa would not be consistent. In intransitive verbs, it would indeed be fwa, other times it would be fì'ul a or a contraction thereof.

Tsnì is probably the predicative equivalent, not the intransitive equivalent. Still, it would be nice to have this confirmed.

['eylan na'viyä]

Kaltxì
the following has been discussed here:
http://forum.learnnavi.org/advanced-grammar/ay-me/?topicseen
i think its worth beeing added to the list

when you want to say that many pairs of eyes see more than one pair, i thought you might say that this way in na'vi:

aymenari to menari kame txan

so the question is: can these prefixes be combined or how else could it be expressed in a good way?

[omängum fra'uti]

As I commented in that other thread, me- is not "Pair of", in a sense of a set, it's just two.  So "Many two eyes" - it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  We'd probably need a word specifically for "pair" (Probably based off mune and teng somehow, something like munteng).

[Lance R. Casey]

Fwa is not subjective. It is not a counterpart to futa at all. Tsnì is also used with intransitive verbs. The subjective counterpart to futa would not be consistent. In intransitive verbs, it would indeed be fwa, other times it would be fì'ul a or a contraction thereof.

So you're basically saying that fwa is not the subjective counterpart to futa, except when it is?
But yeah, it can only be used when the main verb is intransitive, otherwise the fì'u part would need to be in the ergative:

Tsu'tey zolup a fì'ul heykolangham Neytirit
That Tsu'tey fell made Neytiri laugh

I would not be at all surprised to find *fula in there if the clause order were reversed...

As for tsnì also being used with intransitive verbs, the syntactic environment is different there. In sentences with things like fpìl futa ... or lu fwa ..., fì'u is acting as either the direct object or intransitive subject of the main verb. In a sentence like oe ätxäle si tsnì ..., the main verb already has a subject, and due to its being intrinsically intransitive (Jan 21), it cannot have an accusative object. In the previous two cases the subordinate clause functions attributively to define fì'u, which in turn takes on the role as one of the core arguments of the main verb, but in the last case the SC lacks this explicit connection for the aforementioned reason -- and that's what tsnì is for.

Tsnì is probably the predicative equivalent, not the intransitive equivalent.

I don't follow this. Explain, please?

[omängum fra'uti]

I would not be at all surprised to find *fula in there if the clause order were reversed...

I'm not so sure...  How many times have you used "fì'ul a" in Na'vi?  I don't think I ever have.