Life, Death, and gerunds

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Maybe you can solve it with attributive clauses so "I like to work" could be: "oeru prrte' lu fwa oe tìkangkem seri" literally I like that I am working, possibly by dropping the <er> or using krr a instead of fwa you could get it closer to what you want to say.

As for helping is good, using srung seems very strange to me as "helping is good" implies that there is a benefit to he who helps whilst the na'vi you gave implies that aid is to be desired, that there is a benefit to the person being helped. Using relative clauses though, we could get: oe srung si a fì'u sìltsan lu (oer(u)) or literally this-I-help-thing is good (to me).

[Tirea Aean]

well yeah you can do the whole "subject verb a fì'u prrte' lu subject-dative" thing. that is a different thing tho. that is saying "this subject verbs thing is pleasurable to subject." like you said, "this I help thing is pleasurable to me." but I was being very general by trying to say that the act of assistance is good. a very broad statement that may apply to both the person helping and the person being helped.

[NeotrekkerZ]

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.

So, what in that case is teylut, linguistically?  It seems to me we have a direct object either way, with or without the subjunctive verb complement.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

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.

So, what in that case is teylut, linguistically?  It seems to me we have a direct object either way, with or without the subjunctive verb complement.

Teylut is indeed accusative, but it isn't in the same clause as the oe, if you break it down into clauses you get: {oe new {(oel) yivom teylut}} so you can see that the teylut isn't in the same clause as the oe so doesn't force it to take an ergative case.

well yeah you can do the whole "subject verb a fì'u prrte' lu subject-dative" thing. that is a different thing tho. that is saying "this subject verbs thing is pleasurable to subject." like you said, "this I help thing is pleasurable to me." but I was being very general by trying to say that the act of assistance is good. a very broad statement that may apply to both the person helping and the person being helped.

The thing is, helping is good is a different sentiment than assistance is good. If you want to express the first, the relative clause constuction is probably the closest we can do for now, if you want the latter, then dropping the si seems like a good bet.

[Tirea Aean]

That makes sense.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Teylut is indeed accusative, but it isn't in the same clause as the oe, if you break it down into clauses you get: {oe new {(oel) yivom teylut}} so you can see that the teylut isn't in the same clause as the oe so doesn't force it to take an ergative case.

I am not sure why it is obvious that there is an a 'contextual oel' before the yivom in that sentence. It is also not clear to me why a simple sentence like this would be be two clauses. The sentence as translated is really direct: 'I want to eat beetle larva', rather than 'I want I to eat beetle larva'. Or are modal verbs like fwe/futs/furia in that they split sentences into clauses? And if modal verbs render their 'verb' as intransitive, why can't teylut be simply teylu? (I know there is some strangeness with new, in the sense it can be used transitively. Is this one of those cases?)

Is it possible that there is more than one acceptable way to write some of these sentences?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Teylut is indeed accusative, but it isn't in the same clause as the oe, if you break it down into clauses you get: {oe new {(oel) yivom teylut}} so you can see that the teylut isn't in the same clause as the oe so doesn't force it to take an ergative case.

I am not sure why it is obvious that there is an a 'contextual oel' before the yivom in that sentence. It is also not clear to me why a simple sentence like this would be be two clauses. The sentence as translated is really direct: 'I want to eat beetle larva', rather than 'I want I to eat beetle larva'. Or are modal verbs like fwe/futs/furia in that they split sentences into clauses? And if modal verbs render their 'verb' as intransitive, why can't teylut be simply teylu? (I know there is some strangeness with new, in the sense it can be used transitively. Is this one of those cases?)

Is it possible that there is more than one acceptable way to write some of these sentences?

The oe being elided is identical to other cases of subject drop we have in na'vi where the subject is the same.

All modals do indeed create two clauses, the main clause which has the modal verb in it, and the subjunctive clause that has the other verb in it.

Teylu has to be accusative because otherwise you would be saying you want the brainworms to eat, they are the direct object of yom and so must be marked even if the subject is not specified, likewise, it would still be teylut(i) if it were tsun or zene instead of new.

[Tirea Aean]

we in English say, "I want to eat food." which really is if you think about it, a combination of two ideas: "I want something" and "I eat food." so what happens is "I want this 'I eat food' thing." and THAT is how the Na'vi say it:

Oel new fì'ut.
I want this thing.

oel yom syuvet.
I eat food.

add them together:

Oel new fì'ut a Oel yivom syuvet.
I want this "I eat food" thing.

this gets shortened because of redundancy of "I":

Oel new futa yivom syuvet.
I want this "eat food thing" aka "I want to eat food."

this can even further be shortened because of common modal form(BUT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE):
Oe new yivom syuvet.
I want to eat food.

<eyawr lu kefyak?>

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

So, are these sentences expressing the right ideas as shared here?

oe new tswivayon vay Iknimayat

oe zene tivìran ka klltxet  letskxe

oe set tsun futa i`enit sivar

[Lance R. Casey]

oe new tswivayon vay Iknimayat

No case with adpositions, and even if tswayon is transitive (which I doubt) its object would not be the place flown to, so Iknimaya.

oe zene tivìran ka klltxet  letskxe

Again, no accusative, and "ground" is kllte (no ejective).

oe set tsun futa i`enit sivar

New is the only modal that allows the "long form" (ergative + futa), so this should be oe set tsun i'enit sivar. That the accusative is required in this sentence, and disallowed in the previous two, is because here you have a transitive verb in the second clause. All modals we know of so far are intransitive, except for new which is ambitransitive and therefore offers two possibilities.

Frommer's statements on the matter and here (Jan 20 x2) and here.

[Tsamsiyu92]

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 agree, but "can" sentences 100% of the time has another verb in it.

Oe tsun fìkranit mivakto.

[omängum fra'uti]

oe new tswivayon vay Iknimayat

No case with adpositions, and even if tswayon is transitive (which I doubt) its object would not be the place flown to, so Iknimaya.

Also it would probably be "ne Iknimaya", but certainly not "vay" - that means "up to" in time, such as "vay set" up to now.

[Plumps]

Also it would probably be "ne Iknimaya", but certainly not "vay" - that means "up to" in time, such as "vay set" up to now.

Actually, that's not quite true...
From an excerpt at the canon page from Frommer, Feb 1

Vay (ADP-) means 'up to.' It can be used in several senses, not just temporal: "He counted up to 35" or "Follow the river up to the land of destruction" (a line from one of the video games).

    Note vaykrr (CONJ): until.

Or has he changed that in the mean time? Could be that I'm missing something...

[omängum fra'uti]

Ok I'd forgotten that one, I'll need to remember to keep in mind.

Though it seems like his examples all give it as a condition of termination, rather than a direction.  "Count, but stop when you reach 35", or "Follow the river, but stop when you reach the land of destruction".  On the other hand, "Fly around (aimlessly) until you reach Iknimaya"?  But I could just be splitting hairs.

Saying "Fly up to Iknimaya" seems like up is the direction, and to is a destination, rather than "up to" being one concept.  In other words, "Fly up, to Iknimaya" vs "Fly, up to Iknimaya".

[Ftiafpi]

Ok I'd forgotten that one, I'll need to remember to keep in mind.

Though it seems like his examples all give it as a condition of termination, rather than a direction.  "Count, but stop when you reach 35", or "Follow the river, but stop when you reach the land of destruction".  On the other hand, "Fly around (aimlessly) until you reach Iknimaya"?  But I could just be splitting hairs.

Saying "Fly up to Iknimaya" seems like up is the direction, and to is a destination, rather than "up to" being one concept.  In other words, "Fly up, to Iknimaya" vs "Fly, up to Iknimaya".

Yeah, I'd agree with omängum that it seems like those examples use vay for measurements not direction. But then again, I see no reason it couldn't work for that. I'd say this is one instance where I'd use it if I had no other way to say something but I wouldn't assume it's correct yet.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Ok I'd forgotten that one, I'll need to remember to keep in mind.

Though it seems like his examples all give it as a condition of termination, rather than a direction.  "Count, but stop when you reach 35", or "Follow the river, but stop when you reach the land of destruction".  On the other hand, "Fly around (aimlessly) until you reach Iknimaya"?  But I could just be splitting hairs.

Saying "Fly up to Iknimaya" seems like up is the direction, and to is a destination, rather than "up to" being one concept.  In other words, "Fly up, to Iknimaya" vs "Fly, up to Iknimaya".

[v]vay[/b] is listed in the dictionary (v10) without any qualifications as what it can mean. So, I assumed it could be used for 'fly, up to Iknamaya'. And indeed, that usage agrees with Frommer's second use. USing it for a situation like 'count up to 35' hadn't occurred to me.

Somehow, I need to figure out a way to remember all these little rules, so 100 percent of my sentences won't be wrong

[omängum fra'uti]

A lot of words, unfortunately, just the definition is not enough to understand them.  "Up to" is one of those.

"It is up to me" - I am the one that needs to do it.
"Look up to him" - See him as a role model.
"Follow the road up to the freeway" - Follow the road until you reach the freeway.
"Count up to 10" - Count until you reach 10.
"Up to now" - Before now
"Run up to him" - Run towards him / approach him
"Fly up to the moon" - Fly towards the moon, in an upward direction

Those are all slightly different meanings.  The first two are, obviously, vastly different than the rest and not covered by "vay".  Of the others they can fall into two slightly different categories.  One is a direction to head in.  The other is a terminal point.  When its used as a direction it is also the terminal point, but when it is the terminal point it is not necessarily also the direction.

Your example is using it as a terminal point and a direction.  Frommers seem to be using it as just a terminal point.

[omängum fra'uti]

Another argument against vay being usable like that...

That is giving "up" as a direction.  "Fly up, until you reach Iknimaya".  If you were at Iknimaya and heading to the ground you wouldn't say "Fly up to the ground", you would say "Fly down to the ground".  However, we have nothing that provides the opposite sense of "down to".

Perhaps you could, however, say...

oe new tswivayon nefä vay Iknimaya
vs.
oe new tswivayon nekll vay atxkxe

[Ftiafpi]

I've been kind of thinking that "vay" is almost used like "until" in many ways. "vay set" = "until now", etc.

So, "tswayon vay Iknimaya" would translate almost literally as "fly until Iknimaya". Which works great if you're giving directions ("take a left at the giant glowing willow tree then travel for 5.2 miles") but not so much for a direction.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I've been kind of thinking that "vay" is almost used like "until" in many ways. "vay set" = "until now", etc.

So, "tswayon vay Iknimaya" would translate almost literally as "fly until Iknimaya". Which works great if you're giving directions ("take a left at the giant glowing willow tree then travel for 5.2 miles") but not so much for a direction.

That is kind of like a famous quote 'Take a left at the moon and then straight on 'till morning'.
I suspect though that 'until' is not a very good adposition.

In following up on nefä,  I came up with this- oe new tswivayon nefä  ne Iknimaya I think this is better.