Genitive case refinement; declension of tsaw

Started by wm.annis, March 17, 2010, 09:28:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wm.annis

I'm currently working on a very dense grammar summary of what we currently know about Na'vi grammar.  Karyu Pawl was kind enough to take a look at it and make a few comments.  The most important new pieces of data to come out of those comments are:

"After i, u, and o, it's just ä, not yä." (the genitive of words ending in vowels)

I had this in the document: "Third person inanimate cases, tsaw, tsal, tsat, tsar(u), gen.?, top.?"  His note, "As you can guess, tseyä and tsari, although I haven't had occasion to use them yet."

Keylstxatsmen

Nice!  Are we assuming that all pronouns end in "-eyä"?
Txantsan!  Kxawm law awngaru fwa *aylì'u tuptstxoä zene 'ivi'a fa "-eyä" srak?

-Keyl
Oeru lì'fya leNa'vi prrte' leiu nìtxan! 

Txo nga new leskxawnga tawtutehu nìNa'vi pivängkxo, oeru 'upxaret fpe' ulte ngaru srungit tayìng oel.  Faylì'ut alor nume 'awsiteng ko!

okrìsti

#2
Good to know.
Are there any notes about the case endings like -ti/-t; depending on the following word or taken by personal preferences?
What about pronouns like "whose", *pesuyä or *tuyäpe edit or even (following Keyls assumption) *peseyä or *teyäpe?
dA | nga tsun oehu pivlltxe fa skype: c4duser
awngeyä wìki sìltsan lu
txopu lu fya'o ne vawma pa'o – nawma karyu Yotxa

Na'rìghawnu

#3

Quote"After i, u, and o, it's just ä, not yä." (the genitive of words ending in vowels)

As we know from examples, the other cases do not use their "non-vowel-form" (-ìl, -ur, -it) after i, u and o. So it's just a "genitive speciality". Really a weird case in Na'vi!

By the way: I'm looking forward to see your concise grammar published!

Lance R. Casey

Quote from: wm.annis on March 17, 2010, 09:28:43 PM
I had this in the document: "Third person inanimate cases, tsaw, tsal, tsat, tsar(u), gen.?, top.?"  His note, "As you can guess, tseyä and tsari, although I haven't had occasion to use them yet."
So where does this leave the stand-alone tsa hinted at here? Is it interchangeable with tsaw? Also, do we know whether *mesa(w), *pxesa(w) and derivatives thereof are kosher?

// Lance R. Casey

omängum fra'uti

Seems like tsa always gets something following it, with a -w if nothing else.  I don't see why mesaw/etc wouldn't be allowed.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

wm.annis

Quote from: okrìsti on March 17, 2010, 09:54:22 PM
Are there any notes about the case endings like -ti/-t; depending on the following word or taken by personal preferences?

In the document I say that the choice between the long and short endings in the dative and patientive (i.e. -ru vs. -r and -ti vs -t) "appears to be largely a matter of style and euphony."  He made no comment on that statement.

Plumps

And what about the rules which follows what?
Usually the approach was -l -r(u) -t(i) after vowels and -ìl -ur(u) -it after consonants ... now we have forms like
Kem(ì)ri a ngaru prrte' ke lu, Tsakem rä'ä sivi aylaheru.
where Frommer himself states kemri is a possible option... is that only possible after nasals?

roger

#8
We also have tsawl and tsawt, so the question is whether *tsa exists as an indep. PN.

The new genitive rule appears to occur in the film, with Omatikayoä. I'm going by ear here, and wasn't able to make much sense of it before now.

tsrräfkxätu

#9
The way I see it is that the POSS ending is universally , but when it follows another lax vowel, you insert a [j] to ease pronunciation. Then, what we see here is not really an exception, but the influence of a phonotactic rule.

Of course, as soon as someone points out a single occurrence where there are two lax vowels side by side in a word, my whole theory goes down the drain. :D

(I'm aware that tenseness and laxness are undefined with respect to Na'vi, but [u], [o], and [i] would be considered tense in English, just as [ɪ], [æ], and [ɛ] would be lax. I think [a] could go either way, so I just assumed it would be lax too.)
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

Na'rìghawnu


Quotewhere there are two lax vowels side by side in a word

e. g.
mu [mu.ˈi.æ] (Adj) proper, fair, right, justified.
n [ni.ˈæ] (Vtr) grab.

and here are all three of them:

äie [æ.ˈi.ɛ] (N) vision (spiritual sense).


tsrräfkxätu

Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on March 18, 2010, 10:45:58 AM

Quotewhere there are two lax vowels side by side in a word

e. g.
mu [mu.ˈi.æ] (Adj) proper, fair, right, justified.
n [ni.ˈæ] (Vtr) grab.

and here are all three of them:

äie [æ.ˈi.ɛ] (N) vision (spiritual sense).



Not good, because [i] isn't lax. :D
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen  

Na'rìghawnu


Oh, sorry, my bad. Well then your rule seems to be hard to beat, maybe with:

Katot taftxu oel nìean nìrim (Weaving Song)


roger

I just figured it was -ä after high & back vowels (which would cover diphthongs and rr, ll as well) and -yä elsewhere.

Kì'eyawn

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on March 18, 2010, 05:35:45 AM
Seems like tsa always gets something following it, with a -w if nothing else.  I don't see why mesaw/etc wouldn't be allowed.

Wait, i'm confused.  I thought tsaw was the short form of tsa'u--isn't tsa its own thing?
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

omängum fra'uti

We've never actually seen "tsa" on it's own from a canon source.  Only as a prefix, or with case endings.  Not sure on tsaw vs tsa'u.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

NeotrekkerZ

Have we seen tsaw somewhere?  I can't recall.
Rìk oe lu hufwemì, nìn fya'ot a oe tswayon!

roger

#17
Quote from: tigermind on March 18, 2010, 12:51:30 PM
I thought tsaw was the short form of tsa'u--isn't tsa its own thing?

Yes, that's right. Tsa just isn't attested without a suffix. Before Wm's addition, we had this:

Quote from: Frommer
"Tsaw" is a development ... of tsa'u. The two are synonymous, and both are in use. So you have pairs like tsa'uri/tsawri, tsa'ut/tsawt, etc.

Kì'eyawn

Quote from: roger on March 18, 2010, 06:13:03 PM
Quote from: tigermind on March 18, 2010, 12:51:30 PM
I thought tsaw was the short form of tsa'u--isn't tsa its own thing?

Yes, that's right. Tsa just isn't attested without a suffix. Before Wm's addition, we had this:

Quote from: Frommer
"Tsaw" is a development ... of tsa'u. The two are synonymous, and both are in use. So you have pairs like tsa'uri/tsawri, tsa'ut/tsawt, etc.


Okay, that makes sense.  Irayo, ma tsmukan.
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

tsrräfkxätu

Quote from: Frommer
"Tsaw" is a development ... of tsa'u. The two are synonymous, and both are in use. So you have pairs like tsa'uri/tsawri, tsa'ut/tsawt, etc.

Since it has been established that diphthong-final words get case endings like consonant-final ones (i.e one that starts with a vowel), I don't understand why these aren't tsawit and tsawìri...
párolt zöldség — muntxa fkxen