Fmawno

Started by Lance R. Casey, August 24, 2010, 06:13:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kemaweyan

Tse.. lolu oer säfpìl alahe. Nìawnomum, lì'fyaviri alu mì ayhelku zene fko pivlltxe san mayhelku. Slä txo fko new pivlltxe san mì ayoeyä kelku sìk, zene fì'u livu teng srak? Zene fko pivlltxe san mayoeyä kelku sìk srak?
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

wm.annis

Quote from: Kemaweyan on August 25, 2010, 12:09:23 PMSlä txo fko new pivlltxe san mì ayoeyä kelku sìk, zene fì'u livu teng srak? Zene fko pivlltxe san mayoeyä kelku sìk srak?

Srane, oel fpìl fìfya.  Awgnal omum futa lì'u alu tenga korenit lek, hufwa lu fnelì'u alahe.  Pelun lì'u alu lu keteng?  Fì'u nì'aw koren lu pamä a fì'ut fpìl oel.

Kemaweyan

Lu fì'u koren lepam nì'aw fu zene fko pamrel sivi nìtengfya? Nìawnomum, fì + ay = faytsa + ay = tsay ulte pamrel si fko fìfya frakrr. Ha tsunslu fwa zene fko pamrel sivi nìfya'o alu mayhilvan tup fìfya alu mì ayhìlvan srak?
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Lance R. Casey

Pamrel ke latem:

Quote from: Pawl(Note: Although the writing doesn't change, the mì + ay- combination is pronounced may. So mì ayhilvan is pronounced as if it were mayhilvan. Other examples of this process: nìayoeng 'like us, as we do' is pronounced nayweng; aynantang sì ayriti 'viperwolves and stingbats' is pronounced aynantang sayriti.)
(ta Na'viteri)

// Lance R. Casey

Kemaweyan

Irayo :) Eltu ke sami.. nìngay oel molunge fìkorenit alu teri tìpuslltxe tsatsengeta, slä fìlì'fyavir eltur ke soli.. ngaytxoa. Set lu law nìwotx :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

wm.annis

Quote from: Prrton on August 24, 2010, 01:02:34 PMIf you don't like the sawtute influenced example:

 «ikran a ramftu alusìng holum»

     vs.

 «ikran a ram alusìngftu holum»

Since genitives are often quite like adjectives in terms of their syntax, I think we can say that enclitic adpositions will always attach to their noun.  From the Canon, we get the idiom for "forever," tì'i'avay krrä, not *tì'i'a krrävay.

Kemaweyan

Quote from: wm.annis on August 25, 2010, 07:54:29 PM
Since genitives are often quite like adjectives in terms of their syntax, I think we can say that enclitic adpositions will always attach to their noun.  From the Canon, we get the idiom for "forever," tì'i'avay krrä, not *tì'i'a krrävay.

And tì'efumì oeyä ;)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tirea Aean

i just got it:

tsat ngal new tsat tsun niväk...maybe a comma would have made it click earlier...

tsat ngal new, tsat (nga) tsun niväk
what you want, that you can drink.

</lame post concerning old issue in topic>

eltur tìtxen si all of this stuff.

and ayram alusìngftu just does NOT seem right to me. ayramftu alusìng does tho. did he actually say that it was right to put adp on the end of alusìng? O,O

Sireayä mokri

Quote from: Tirea Aean on August 26, 2010, 10:23:26 AM
and ayram alusìngftu just does NOT seem right to me. ayramftu alusìng does tho.

Mllte oe. Awngar lu pxaya lì'fyavi a wìntxu tsengit a lì'u alu *adp* zene tivok.
When the mirror speaks, the reflection lies.

Kemaweyan

#29
Quote from: K. PawlSrane, lì'ul alu mì frakrr leykatem lì'ut ahay tsafya—fwa livu tstxolì'u, livu lahea fnelì'u ke tsranten.

If always changes the next word, does it mean what with nouns in trial lenition also happens? Is this right?

pxehelkumì pehelku

So, I can see here ambiguity: is it "in three houses" or question "in which house"?
No, I understood. If this is right, that should be

pxehelkumì pehelku
pehelkumì fehelku

There is no ambiguity :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

wm.annis

Quote from: Kemaweyan on September 02, 2010, 01:56:47 PMpxehelkumì pehelku

So, I can see here ambiguity: is it "in three houses" or question "in which house"?

But we know always causes lenition in the following word.  "In which house" would be mì fehelku.  If that causes anxiety, mì helkupe is always an option.

Kemaweyan

Yeah, I just understood it :) But what about trial?
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

wm.annis

Quote from: Kemaweyan on September 02, 2010, 02:03:33 PMBut what about trial?

Mì pehelku is correct for "in three rivers."  Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Kemaweyan

Thanks :)

P.S. Mì pehelku is correct for "in three houses." ;)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

wm.annis

Quote from: Kemaweyan on September 02, 2010, 02:13:42 PM
Thanks :)

P.S. Mì pehelku is correct for "in three houses." ;)

D'oh!  Yes.  Not sure why I confused kelku and kilvan.

Kemaweyan

Maybe bacause here was examples with kilvan, but I used kelku ;)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Prrton

Quote from: тиреа аеан on August 26, 2010, 10:23:26 AM
did he actually say that it was right to put adp on the end of alusìng? O,O

Not to my knowledge. I agree that it seems very weird to have an adposition come after a post-noun adjective, but it also seems very weird to me that it can be separated from its noun when the order is reversed. I hear it as an "English accent" affected by the way prepositions behave in my native language. That's all.

It is very CONVENIENT for us to be able to separate it when it comes before, but it just doesn't seem very 'Na'vi' to me.

How far does it go?

  Pxefol yolom wutsoti lekxamtrr hanua sì sevina 'evengeyä kelku a tok pxawpati na'rìngä apxa?

That's easy enough for me understand once I figure out «hanua» (from «kanu»), but the grammar is just about 100% English in terms of word order.

I would not mind if we had a rule that FORCED us to encliticize «-mì» there after «kelku». THAT would seem more natively 'Na'vi' to me.

The LOGIC of it being OK before and not after just seems missing to me (and influenced by Indo-European). It's an observation. Not a complaint, though.


wm.annis

Quote from: Prrton on September 02, 2010, 06:13:33 PMI would not mind if we had a rule that FORCED us to encliticize «-mì» there after «kelku». THAT would seem more natively 'Na'vi' to me.

Ma Prrton, no one on this green Earth has native Na'vi intuitions at this point. :)  To say nothing of the retconning Frommer would have to do.

Restrictions on enclitic adpositions make sense if we think of them as proto- or almost-but-not-yet case endings.  Even if they're not exactly cases, I can easily see free prepositions working at the noun phrase level, while enclitic adpositions stick to the noun under pressure from the behavior of the cases.  Analogy is a powerful force in the history of a language.

Prrton

#38
Quote from: wm.annis on September 02, 2010, 06:39:55 PM
Quote from: Prrton on September 02, 2010, 06:13:33 PMI would not mind if we had a rule that FORCED us to encliticize «-mì» there after «kelku». THAT would seem more natively 'Na'vi' to me.

Ma Prrton, no one on this green Earth has native Na'vi intuitions at this point. :)  To say nothing of the retconning Frommer would have to do.

Restrictions on enclitic adpositions make sense if we think of them as proto- or almost-but-not-yet case endings.  Even if they're not exactly cases, I can easily see free prepositions working at the noun phrase level, while enclitic adpositions stick to the noun under pressure from the behavior of the cases.  Analogy is a powerful force in the history of a language.

But what about what we have so far, ma Wm., makes the encliticized post-positions the innovation? Couldn't a complex case system be 'deteriorating' (morphing) into "adpositions"? It's happened before.

Forgive my use of the term "natively". Please replace with "idiomatically".

I'll look forward to the/an answer from the source at some point in the future.  ;)

I can see the "reality" being all kinds of different things, but regardless of the backstory, it still SEEMS/FEELS English-y to me that they might travel so far away from their nouns. The particles of Japanese (not really cases, not really not cases in some cases) are probably also influencing my feelings. They remain my feelings, nonetheless.


wm.annis

Quote from: Prrton on September 02, 2010, 07:01:54 PMBut what about what we have so far, ma Wm., makes the encliticized post-positions the innovation. Couldn't a complex case system be 'deteriorating' (morphing) into "adpositions"? It's happened before.

In what languages?  Case endings tend to evaporate away, if anything, not become unmoored and float around.  Postpostion -> case ending is much, much more common.

QuoteI can see the "reality" being all kinds of different things, but regardless of the backstory, it still SEEMS/FEELS English-y to me that they might travel so far away from their nouns.

Aah, but they don't go with nouns — they go with the noun phrase, which can be a much bigger thing.  In Japanese, the relationals will always come after the noun because any modifiers in a noun phrase will come before the noun.