Life, Death, and gerunds

[NeotrekkerZ]

I don't mind at all, it helps everyone learn.  Until we get that paradigm from K. Pawl, yours is probably the best way of saying it. 

I do admit to being a little confused as to your use of oe even after looking at the link.  It still appears to me that when there's an accusative object with new the subject takes the ergative:  oel new futa (Taronyu) kivä¹.  In fact, it seems to contradict the teylu example in the wikibook link you provided.

Perhaps the subject takes the ergative only when used in combination with futa? 

[roger]

In "oe new kivä", 'new' is an intransitive verb, as only (pro)nouns can be objects. In 'oel new futa po kivä', it is a transitive verb, "I want that".

[NeotrekkerZ]

But you can also have oel new futa kivä as well which means the same thing as oe new kivä, hence my futa idea.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

new is ambitransitive, it only counts as transitive when the direct object (futa or another noun) is made explicit, otherwise it is instransitive, hence oe new kivä but oel new mipa tskot or oel new futa nivume.

[Tirea Aean]

when the object of new is a verb, you dont need l and futa.

____new v<iv>erb.
oe new kivä

just like

____tsun v<iv>erb. and all the rest of the modals are like this.
po tsun kivä.

but the second that the thing you want is a material object, it needs to be accusitive and subject gets erg:

___-l new ____-t
oel new ikranit.

same for kin:

____ kin v<iv>erb
oel kin kivä

but for objects:

___-l kin ___-t
oel kin ikranit.

but Im thinking that for that last one, I would use must instead of need. cuz "need to" is kind of an English thing to say? I need to verb is pretty much the same thing as I must verb....aaaaaaaanyway...

[kewnya txamew'itan]

You can use futa though with new, it gets a special long modal form which the others don't.

[Tirea Aean]

you CAN, but who is gonna go and use l and futa when the object that you want is a verb, and you can drop l and futa and just say the verb with <iv>?

like who is gonna say

oel new futa kivä.

when you can say

oe new kivä.

['eylan na'viyä]

you CAN, but who is gonna go and use l and futa when the object that you want is a verb, and you can drop l and futa and just say the verb with <iv>?

like who is gonna say

oel new futa kivä.

when you can say

oe new kivä.

i think it would be useful if the subjects for the 2 verbs are different:

oel new futa nga kivä

[kewnya txamew'itan]

you CAN, but who is gonna go and use l and futa when the object that you want is a verb, and you can drop l and futa and just say the verb with <iv>?

like who is gonna say

oel new futa kivä.

when you can say

oe new kivä.

Who's going to say who is instead of who's or going to instead of gonna?

Also, as 'eylan na'viyä says, it's less ambiguous when different subjects are involved.

['eylan na'viyä]

btw:
is it possible to use futa with all modal verbs or only with those that can be transitive in english?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

As far as we know the only modals are tsun, new and zene and of those, only new can take the long form.

[omängum fra'uti]

new is the only one that is transitive, futa with zene, tsun or zenke would be ungrammatical.

['eylan na'viyä]

new is the only one that is transitive, futa with zene, tsun or zenke would be ungrammatical.

i don't understand why these should be ungrammatical in general. In English or German they are, but when im thinking about what want + substantive means exactly i don't find a reason why i could not work with other modal verbs too.

afaik you can replace all transitive constructions with "want noun" by "want" + "to have noun" or + "to (let) noun happen"

these constructions can be also applied to the other modal verbs. thus leaving them out like usually done with "want" would lead to a transitive construction.

[omängum fra'uti]

I say it is ungrammatical in Na'vi because Frommer says it is ungrammatical.

Consider if "oel tsun futa kivä" were allowed.  That would mean "oel tsun fì'ut a kivä" would be as well...  Then one could take that to mean "oel tsun fì'ut" on its own works.  Now if you can do fì'ut, why not "oel tsun fìikranit"?  But... what does that mean?

In some languages the modals can be used in that maner, but I would argue that is idiomatic, or a different meaning of the words in that context.  In Na'vi, it is ungrammatical.

[roger]

fmi "try" is also a modal, as in fmayi oe 'iveyg "I will try to answer".

[Tirea Aean]

I like how this thread isnt even about tì__us__ gerunds anymore XD <epic derailage much haha>

[NeotrekkerZ]

new is ambitransitive, it only counts as transitive when the direct object (futa or another noun) is made explicit, otherwise it is instransitive, hence oe new kivä but oel new mipa tskot or oel new futa nivume.

But if this is the case, how can we have this canonical sentence:  Oe new yivom teylut?

If it is as you describe above, shouldn't it be oel?

[Ftiafpi]

new is ambitransitive, it only counts as transitive when the direct object (futa or another noun) is made explicit, otherwise it is instransitive, hence oe new kivä but oel new mipa tskot or oel new futa nivume.

But if this is the case, how can we have this canonical sentence:  Oe new yivom teylut?

If it is as you describe above, shouldn't it be oel?

Because there are two clauses there: "I want" + "to eat teylu"

The full sentence would become: "Oe new fwa oel yivom teylut." If it was just "I want teylu" then you are correct, it would be "oel new teylut".

[wm.annis]

The full sentence would become: "Oe new fwa oel yivom teylut." If it was just "I want teylu" then you are correct, it would be "oel new teylut".

Oe new fwa (fì'u a) cannot be grammatical — you've given two subjects, oe and fì'u.  I assume you meant futa for fwa.

The subjunctive verb complement to a modal verb is not the same thing as a direct object, so oe new yivom teylut presents no transitivity problems, even if an alternate phrasing (oel new futa (oel) yivom...) does have a direct object phrase, thanks to the nominalization powers of fì'u a, in this case fì'ut a > futa.

[Kì'eyawn]

new is ambitransitive, it only counts as transitive when the direct object (futa or another noun) is made explicit, otherwise it is instransitive, hence oe new kivä but oel new mipa tskot or oel new futa nivume.

But if this is the case, how can we have this canonical sentence:  Oe new yivom teylut?

If it is as you describe above, shouldn't it be oel?

Because there are two clauses there: "I want" + "to eat teylu"

The full sentence would become: "Oe new fwa oel yivom teylut." If it was just "I want teylu" then you are correct, it would be "oel new teylut".

That's confusing to me.  Why would you have both "Oe new fwa oel yivom teylut" and "Oel new futa ngal yivom teylut"?