Language Update - a closer look at Dr. Frommer's letter

Started by Payoang, January 20, 2010, 02:11:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Alìm Tsamsiyu

Quote from: Kiliyä on January 21, 2010, 02:49:46 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 21, 2010, 02:45:27 PMIf it were (Dropping the adposition)...
Aylì'u sempulyä oeyä 'eylanä a'ewan
The words of my young friend's father?
The words of my father's young friend?

In this case I *THINK* it could be disambiguated by the same means, moving the pronoun to before sempul or after 'eylan.  Without the pronoun that wouldn't be possible, but you can always stick a pronoun in there, because it is someone's father and someone's friend.
the words of the father of the young friend of me.

aylì'u sempulyä 'eylanä a'ewan oeyä...

Right - I think that's what he meant by
QuoteI *THINK* it could be disambiguated by the same means, moving the pronoun to before sempul or after 'eylan.
Oeyä ayswizawri tswayon alìm ulte takuk nìngay.
My arrows fly far and strike true.

omängum fra'uti

Srane, that is exactly what I meant by it.  The pronoun can not be possessed (My father's me?  Me of my father?  Doesn't make sense) so you start at the pronoun and work out.  I'd imagine once you start throwing in multiple genitives like that you'd need a pronoun somewhere in there for that reason, even if that's just a fì'u (Or other fì, tsa, fay, etc word)
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Plumps

Can anyone confirm the part:

Quotemipa aylì'u 'upxareyä ta Karyu Pawl / new vocabulary from the message from Karyu Paul

does that mean: mip = new ?


QuoteAy-lì'ufa awnge-yä 'eylan-ä a'ewan...
PL-word(?) our-GEN friend-GEN young
So we get:
[Aylì'ufa [awngeyä ['eylanä a'ewan]]...
lit., "word of the young friend of ours..."

fa is the adposition for "with, by means of", if I'm not mistaken

Irayo

Alìm Tsamsiyu

Quote from: Plumps83 on January 21, 2010, 03:02:58 PM
Can anyone confirm the part:

Quotemipa aylì'u 'upxareyä ta Karyu Pawl / new vocabulary from the message from Karyu Paul

does that mean: mip = new ?


QuoteAy-lì'ufa awnge-yä 'eylan-ä a'ewan...
PL-word(?) our-GEN friend-GEN young
So we get:
[Aylì'ufa [awngeyä ['eylanä a'ewan]]...
lit., "word of the young friend of ours..."

fa is the adposition for "with, by means of", if I'm not mistaken

Irayo


I'm pretty sure that has been confirmed about mip.

And I think we beat you to the punch on -fa :P

(P.S: Does anybody else think Prrton's avatar pic is a bit creepy? Something about the eyes.. [sorry Prrton!])
Oeyä ayswizawri tswayon alìm ulte takuk nìngay.
My arrows fly far and strike true.

Ftiafpi

Quote from: Alìm Tsamsiyu on January 21, 2010, 03:10:33 PM
(P.S: Does anybody else think Prrton's avatar pic is a bit creepy? Something about the eyes.. [sorry Prrton!])

You're not alone :P

Plumps

#205
Quote from: Alìm Tsamsiyu on January 21, 2010, 03:10:33 PM
I'm pretty sure that has been confirmed about mip.

And I think we beat you to the punch on -fa :P

Okay, great.

I was just writing it again, because suomichris didn't seem to know what it meant...

Yeah, Prrton's pic looks like Gollum gone blue ;D

roger

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 21, 2010, 12:37:43 PM
Well that sort of ruängins that fun. :(
Well, he said that in response to my mishearing <iv> for <ev> in a different verb; I immediately asked why we get it then in kìyevame, but he hasn't[evidential infix here] gotten to that part of his email backlog yet. If he did mean it across the board, as his wording would suggest, then maybe the <ev> here is sound change on <iv>, "may (we) see (e.o.) soon", as suomichris suggested.

roger

Quote from: suomichris on January 21, 2010, 02:01:26 PM
So tìkangkem si would be, literally, "do like aiming," "do in a way like aiming," which, if you're a hunter, is probably a bit like a writer using "put pen to paper" to refer to work...
That's a nice analogy.

roger

Quote from: Plumps83 on January 21, 2010, 03:39:49 PM
Yeah, Prrton's pic looks like Gollum gone blue ;D
I was just thinking a Na'vi hobbit. Not creepy, though.

suomichris

Quote from: roger on January 21, 2010, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 21, 2010, 12:37:43 PM
Well that sort of ruängins that fun. :(
Well, he said that in response to my mishearing <iv> for <ev> in a different verb; I immediately asked why we get it then in kìyevame, but he hasn't[evidential infix here] gotten to that part of his email backlog yet. If he did mean it across the board, as his wording would suggest, then maybe the <ev> here is sound change on <iv>, "may (we) see (e.o.) soon", as suomichris suggested.
Sorry, roger, I thought I had responded to what you said, and can't find the bit in question now... Can you repost/restate what you said/asked/queried?

suomichris

Quote from: roger on January 21, 2010, 04:56:12 PM
Quote from: suomichris on January 21, 2010, 02:01:26 PM
So tìkangkem si would be, literally, "do like aiming," "do in a way like aiming," which, if you're a hunter, is probably a bit like a writer using "put pen to paper" to refer to work...
That's a nice analogy.
Thanks!  I don't want to go nuts-o (OOPS! Too late) trying to parse out everything we find, but since we have both kan and kem for sure, and that this explains both why it shows up with si and a nominalizer....  Ya, I think this is probably more solid than some of my other analyses :p

wisnij

#211
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 20, 2010, 03:06:10 PM
To the best of my knowledge, it is as nonsensical to combine a noun case and adposition as it is to combine two noun cases.
Not necessarily.
Wé cildra biddaþ þé, éalá láréow, þæt þú taéce ús sprecan rihte, forþám ungelaérede wé sindon, and gewæmmodlíce we sprecaþ.

suomichris

Quote from: wisnij on January 21, 2010, 06:55:32 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 20, 2010, 03:06:10 PM
To the best of my knowledge, it is as nonsensical to combine a noun case and adposition as it is to combine two noun cases.
Not necessarily.
I have never heard of this phenomenon, but fail to see how it is interesting...  Are you thinking this is what's happening in Na'vi?

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: wisnij on January 21, 2010, 06:55:32 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 20, 2010, 03:06:10 PM
To the best of my knowledge, it is as nonsensical to combine a noun case and adposition as it is to combine two noun cases.
Not necessarily.
If I'm understanding what it's saying, I think we'd notice if Na'vi did it.

To take the genitive example they have of "man's feet" where the word for "man" gets the case from "feet", we'd end up with...  (Substituting in a word we know - eyes)

Mesutetiyä menariti
person-DUAL-ACC-GEN eye-DUAL-ACC

But we don't...  We get

Tuteyä menariti
person-GEN eye-DUAL-ACC

So within the context of Na'vi (Which is how I meant it...) I stand by that statement.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

roger

Ah, we have one possibly counterexample, at least according to the SG appendix. There sat is listed as "that" after ftu "from". I'd like to see the text for that to be sure, though.

Also, is "those" attested? We know "these" is fay-, but "those" could potentially be either tsay- or sa-. E.g., are the plurals of fì'u, tsa'u = fay'u, tsay'u or ayfí'u, sa'u?

Keylstxatsmen

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 21, 2010, 07:17:15 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 20, 2010, 03:06:10 PM
To the best of my knowledge, it is as nonsensical to combine a noun case and adposition as it is to combine two noun cases.
Mesutetiyä menariti
person-DUAL-ACC-GEN eye-DUAL-ACC

(emphasis mine)

I thought we were talking about noun case + adpositions?  Why does the non-combining of noun cases prove anything about that?

-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!

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: roger on January 21, 2010, 07:34:11 PM
Ah, we have one possibly counterexample, at least according to the SG appendix. There sat is listed as "that" after ftu "from". I'd like to see the text for that to be sure, though.

Also, is "those" attested? We know "these" is fay-, but "those" could potentially be either tsay- or sa-. E.g., are the plurals of fì'u, tsa'u = fay'u, tsay'u or ayfí'u, sa'u?
I don't see that as a counter example.  In fact, I see that as attesting that "ftu" is ADP+ and for some reason someone felt like listing the lenited accusitive "that" on it's own.

ftu + tsat = ftu sat
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

wm.annis

Quote from: roger on January 21, 2010, 07:34:11 PME.g., are the plurals of fì'u, tsa'u = fay'u, tsay'u or ayfí'u, sa'u?

I really hope fayu and *tsayu (assuming tsay- is correct).

roger

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 21, 2010, 07:50:42 PM
I don't see that as a counter example.  In fact, I see that as attesting that "ftu" is ADP+ and for some reason someone felt like listing the lenited accusitive "that" on it's own.

ftu + tsat = ftu sat
But accusative "that", correct? If the idea that we don't have multiple cases is right, we shouldn't get the accusative after ftu.

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: roger on January 21, 2010, 08:02:19 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 21, 2010, 07:50:42 PM
I don't see that as a counter example.  In fact, I see that as attesting that "ftu" is ADP+ and for some reason someone felt like listing the lenited accusitive "that" on it's own.

ftu + tsat = ftu sat
But accusative "that", correct? If the idea that we don't have multiple cases is right, we shouldn't get the accusative after ftu.
Gee thanks for pointing out I'm contradicting myself. :P

Given that "after ftu" is their words, and assuming we are correct that "ftu" is a preposition (Which causing lenition seems to indicate - besides prepositions only prefixes cause lenition that I know of) that leads me to believe I was incorrect in declaring it as the accusitive "that".  Perhaps rather it is merely the root word "that" from which the prefix "tsa-" is derived from?  It does sort of sound close to how you would render the English "That" in Na'vi, truth be told.  (Slightly different vowel, but otherwise...)
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!