Life, Death, and gerunds

[omängum fra'uti]

That would be because you posted 34 seconds too late

[Ftiafpi]

Ack, my bad. I've managed to confuse myself. You guys sort it out.

['eylan na'viyä]

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?

Ok it's clear then, when Frommer said that it works like that. I didn't know this.

But just for clarification:
"i can this ikran" analogously to "i want this ikran" would mean:
"i can have this ikran"               "i want (to) have this ikran"

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.

In that case i would say that want is also idiomatic.

_{sorry for the continued derailig}

[kewnya txamew'itan]

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.

I agree with you, but, playing devil's advocate a bit here, 'eylan na'viyä might have a point if you used "fìkem a" instead of fì'ut, alternatively you could go for a (probably grammatical but very long winded):

oe tsun fìkem a kivä sivi

[Tirea Aean]

bottom line:

Oe new tivaron tawtutet.

I want to hunt skyperson.

not oel new tivaron tawtutet. BECAUSE:

(oel new fì'ut) + (oel taron tawtutet)--> Oel new fì'ut a oel taron tawtutet-->oel new futa tivaron tawtutet.

we KNOW that is grammatical. and so is this when you simplify it further (which is not requrired but is common:)

Oe new tivaron tawtutet.

cool?

--Spirit Blue

[roger]

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

In Japanese it's not idiomatic. It's approx. 'This horse is a possibility for me'. *How* it's a possibility is a matter for context. Could mean I can ride it, find it, kill it, whatever is the topic under discussion.

[Tirea Aean]

tsun is intransitive and cant have an object. one cannot "can" something. to say "I can the Ikran" makes NO sense...but to say "Is able to be to me Ikran" makes sense. that is basically saying I can have (a/the) ikran: tsun livu oeru Ikran.

you CAN however "WANT" something or "NEED" something.

the only object that "CAN" can have is another verb. still, you dont add suffixes and such to a verb and the subject...that makes NO sense either. so I can eat food is oe tsun yivom syuvet. I can sleep is oe tsun hivahaw.

[Tsamsiyu92]

What is a gerund?

[Nìwotxkrr Tìyawn]

It's when a verb is used as a noun, like when adding '-ing' in English.

['eylan na'viyä]

tsun is intransitive and cant have an object. one cannot "can" something. to say "I can the Ikran" makes NO sense...but to say "Is able to be to me Ikran" makes sense. that is basically saying I can have (a/the) ikran: tsun livu oeru Ikran.

you CAN however "WANT" something or "NEED" something.

the only object that "CAN" can have is another verb. still, you dont add suffixes and such to a verb and the subject...that makes NO sense either. so I can eat food is oe tsun yivom syuvet. I can sleep is oe tsun hivahaw.

Edit: (*number) is for referring._{i did this to hopefully AVOID confusion *g*}

"want verb"(*1-1) and "want noun"(*1-2)   is 1 word(*1) with 2 meanings
"can verb"(*2-1)                                      is 1 word(*2-1) with 1 meaning
"can verb"(*3-1) and "can noun"(*3-2)       is 1 different hypothetical word(*3) with 2 meanings

you can express one with each other:

"want noun"(*1-2) = "want to have noun" or "want to (let) noun happen"
"want verb"(*1-1) = "want the action that"

the same would also works with can(*3):

"can noun"(*3-2) = "can (to) have noun" or "can (to) (let) noun happen"
"can verb"(*3-1) = "can the action that"

so:
"i (*2-1) ikran" doesn't make sense because it would be always interpreted as "i (*2-1) ikran" ( (*2) doesn't exist, so a question for (*2-2) doesn't even occur).
but:
"i (*3) ikran" does because it would be interpreted as "i (*3-2) ikran" what in this example would be "i can have an ikran"

that isn't intuitive in all the languages i know but its a logical conclusion, thus maybe relevant for other languages.

how useful or frequently used this construction is would be a different question.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

tsun is intransitive and cant have an object. one cannot "can" something. to say "I can the Ikran" makes NO sense...but to say "Is able to be to me Ikran" makes sense. that is basically saying I can have (a/the) ikran: tsun livu oeru Ikran.

you CAN however "WANT" something or "NEED" something.

the only object that "CAN" can have is another verb. still, you dont add suffixes and such to a verb and the subject...that makes NO sense either. so I can eat food is oe tsun yivom syuvet. I can sleep is oe tsun hivahaw.

I think Roger's point is that whilst can is the closest English approximation, it might not be representative of a real na'vi translation.

[Tirea Aean]

?

what is with all of the (*numbers) things???

to say "I can noun" makes no sense. "I can HAVE noun" makes sense. you actually do need to say "have." "I can let noun happen" is different entirely. that is like "I am able to allow the noun to __(verb)__"

[Le'eylan]

And how will you know if "I can food" is "I cook" or "I eat"?

[Tirea Aean]

And how will you know if "I can food" is "I cook" or "I eat"?

yeah...or even I can have food, or I can see food, or I can give food, or any other thing that you can do related to food?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

?

what is with all of the (*numbers) things???

to say "I can noun" makes no sense. "I can HAVE noun" makes sense. you actually do need to say "have." "I can let noun happen" is different entirely. that is like "I am able to allow the noun to __(verb)__"

Because tsun isn't necessarily the same as can, it might just be very similar.

I'm not saying that oel tsun futa is grammatical, we know from Frommer that it isn't, I'm just saying that there need not be the panlingual rule forbidding it that you seem to imply.

Looking at it another way, it could be common practice to elide sivi in cases like this so oe tsun srung could be common parlence of a hypothetical native speaker, if such a thing were common practice, the grammar nazis of Pandora might look at this with their prescriptivist eyes and try to 'fix' the grammar and preach that the correct form is oel tsun srungit.

Again, I'm not saying that this would be correct in na'vi (certainly not in its current form) but it is certainly possible to see a language where it was grammatical even if it a result of first a loosening then restricting of the grammar.

[Tirea Aean]

Lets teach what we KNOW is correct so far. deal? this kind of stuff is for Frommer to decide.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I know, as I said, I agree with you that this wouldn't work in na'vi, you just seemed to be implying a panlingual rule that I dispute exists.

[Tirea Aean]

As I did NOT say, "For every language that has ever existed and currently exist now, the following can not be done as it doesnt make sense..." I did not mean that at all. I was trying to refer to English and Na'vi. Now that is cleared up, After all this war, I wanna say that I am thankful to know how to make a gerund with any verb....(but how does "noun si" turn into a gerund? I doubt "noun tìsusi".maybe the noun without si can refer to the gerund? as that would be the noun form of the verb...hmmm)<back to gerunds topic and not modals>

['eylan na'viyä]

As I did NOT say, "For every language that has ever existed and currently exist now, the following can not be done as it doesnt make sense..." I did not mean that at all. I was trying to refer to English and Na'vi. Now that is cleared up, After all this war, I wanna say that I am thankful to know how to make a gerund with any verb....(but how does "noun si" turn into a gerund? I doubt "noun tìsusi".maybe the noun without si can refer to the gerund? as that would be the noun form of the verb...hmmm)<back to gerunds topic and not modals>

gerund = noun without si   would be equal to    no gerund for "noun si". "noun tìsusi" would have different meanings the same way as "tìv<us>erb" and tìverb are different(in most situations).
maybe it could be tì-noun but this would be a bit odd for nouns that already start with tì.

[Tirea Aean]

to say "I like working" where work is a si verb...here is something that might prove my point we would have to end up saying "I like work" which is not exactly the same thing, but is similar enough to get sort of the same idea across.

the thing is in Na'vi, we say something a little closer (but not 100% the exact same thing as) "to do work" instead of "to work" meaning Oe tìkangkem si. not oe tìnkangkem. so to say doing work is good, WOULD it be "tìkangkem tìsusi sìltsan lu" I dont really think so. I would say that to get that idea across, you would have to end up saying "work is good" "tìkangkem lu sìltsan"  and similarly "helping is good." i think would end up being "srung lu sìltsan" instead of "srung tìsusi lu sìltsan" Im thinkin that this is how all the ___si verbs will become gerunds: not at all. just use the noun. speculation and opinion of course. :3