For now, Frommer seems to be excluding the passive from Na'vi.
I like this. F said re the phonology that a language is not defined just by what it has (ejectives, syllabic C's) but by what it lacks (voiced plosives, postalveolars, /oy/). I'd like this to be a case in the grammar too, where Na'vi doesn't have every feature that European langs do. Like lacking a passive, and we just need to learn to work around it. There's no need for a passive in a language without subjects anyway.
The « fko/fkol » constructs *felt* like something vaguely *passive* to me even before K. Pawl clarified it.
I feel like there IS the *function* of passive, it just doesn't happen via a verbal construct:
«
Yamom wutsot letrr (fkol) », in my book, gets translated as "Lunch was eaten".
I don't have it in writing from him, but when the OBJECT is promoted to the head of the phrase (and possibly stressed in pronunciation), the attention is focused on IT, so the overall *importance* of the focus is highlighted and does more or less functionally the same thing as changing the verb does in English/Romance languages.
« Wutsot yamom nìwotx Tsu'teyl », becomes "The meal was devoured by Tsu'tey." (If the agent, Tsu'tey, needs clarification.)
This is radically *normative* compared to the way so many things work (and more importantly DON'T work) in
Pirahã. And it's spoken right here on Earth.

Still... But for how long?...

_____________________________