SCORE! (1) the verb "to use" + (2) more detail on « teya si »

[wm.annis]

I'm sure I read Frommer saying the passive "us" was used only as an adjective.

It is a participle, and acts like an adjective — just not a passive one.  For now, Frommer seems to be excluding the passive from Na'vi.

[Skyinou]

Yes, sorry for that and thanks!

I should then say:
"nume lì'fyat leNa'vi" or "nume lì'fyat a plltxe Na'vi"

[roger]

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.

[Skyinou]

You are so right!
And the same way with the lack of verb "to have"!

These two at least describe Na'vi, ...
but that would be a philosophical talk I can't afford in english 

[Prrton]

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?... 


_____________________________
 

[ikngopyu]

ma Keyl,
The use is only approved with modal verbs, yes, but even if that's not correct with other verbs, there will probably be an other construction for "to + verb", because of the ambiguity I stated earlier, if I'm correct.

I've a question about sivar (a n00b one but I try  ), is sivar from sar = to use + <iv> ?

Yes!
"can use" => "tsun sivar"

Kaltxì ma tsmukan ulte ngar irayo seiyi oe nìtxan !

We definitively need an update in the awesome Taronyu's dictionary !

[Lance R. Casey]

I'm excited about this:  ...sivar ... fte pivlltxe...

I think it's safe to use in other places now, i.e. "learn to speak Na'vi" nume fte pivlltxe nìNa'vi or maybe "try to run fast" fmì fte tivul nìwin, "go to see him" kä fte tsive'a pot, etc.

Can you really extrapolate that?  The example is "use NOUN to VERB" (or perhaps "use NOUN so that VERB").  That's a different construct than "learn to VERB" or "try to VERB", etc.

Wouldn't your examples just be nume futa pivlltxe nìNa'vi etc, similar to the "long form" of new?

  - Eri

"Learn to VERB" is from Mo'at's line in the movie, so I'm starting to think that "verb fte verb" is a standard construction.  You could say it the other way as well though, I think, depends on the situation and the transitivity of the verb most likely.

-Kale

Not quite. I'm assuming that this is the line you're referring to:

Nga sänume sivi poru fte tsivun pi(l)vlltxe sì tivìran na ayoeng.

So it's not "learn to VERB", it's "teach him so that he VERB", with the subjunctive; fte indicates purpose.

[Keylstxatsmen]

Not quite. I'm assuming that this is the line you're referring to:

Nga sänume sivi poru fte tsivun pi(l)vlltxe sì tivìran na ayoeng.

So it's not "learn to VERB", it's "teach him so that he VERB", with the subjunctive; fte indicates purpose.

Ah, yeah it was teach.   Darn it.  I still think it's a useful construction though, and I'm glad to see it used in a different place.

Can you really extrapolate that?  The example is "use NOUN to VERB" (or perhaps "use NOUN so that VERB").  That's a different construct than "learn to VERB" or "try to VERB", etc.

Wouldn't your examples just be nume futa pivlltxe nìNa'vi etc, similar to the "long form" of new?

Would you need the subjunctive after futa in that form? Also what does this mean:

Oel namume futa p(iv)lltxe nìNa'vi nìlstan. 

Does it mean "I learned to speak Na'vi well" or "I learned that I speak Na'vi well"?

-Keyl

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I feel like there IS the *function* of passive, it just doesn't happen via a verbal construct:

Oe mllte.

Likewise, phrases that function like passive participles could be formed using "fko [verb]" and a relative clause marker.

So, "the hunted yerik" -> yerik a fko taron and "the stopped game" would be fko ftolang a uvan.

[Skyinou]

Oel namume futa p(iv)lltxe nìNa'vi nìlstan.  

Does it mean "I learned to speak Na'vi well" or "I learned that I speak Na'vi well"?

I think it will be the first, because "learn" in the way of the second one is probably an other verb in Na'vi.
(I mean: probably you can "nivume" a lesson, not a news.)

And I think that for "I learned that I speak Na'vi well", there will be no <iv> in "plltxe".

[ikngopyu]

I agree with you Skyinou, nume have the meaning of to learn (something), not to be told that (something).

If it were the same verb, we couldn't have a subjunctive, as it could be something reported by someone else, not our opinion.

Nevertheless, I guess that in oel namume futa p(iv)lltxe nìNa'vi nìlstan, the futa construction is clearly closed to "I learned that I speak Na'vi well" as futa is fì'ut+a. For "I learned to speak Na'vi well", this could be unsuitable.

[Keylstxatsmen]

I agree with you Skyinou, nume have the meaning of to learn (something), not to be told that (something).

If it were the same verb, we couldn't have a subjunctive, as it could be something reported by someone else, not our opinion.

Nevertheless, I guess that in oel namume futa p(iv)lltxe nìNa'vi nìlstan, the futa construction is clearly closed to "I learned that I speak Na'vi well" as futa is fì'ut+a. For "I learned to speak Na'vi well", this could be unsuitable.

Irayo, ikngopyu! Finally someone agrees with me.

Regardless of if nume can be used this other way or not, I would rather say Oe namume fte pivlltxe nìNa'vi nìlstan. to mean "I learned to speak Na'vi well" (assuming that nume can be used intransitively).  "futa" seems strange here.

-Keyl

[omängum fra'uti]

What about....

Oel nerume fya'ot a pivlltxe nìNa'vi?
I am learning how to speak Na'vi.

[Keylstxatsmen]

What about....

Oel nerume fya'ot a pivlltxe nìNa'vi?
I am learning how to speak Na'vi.

Oel nerume fya'ot a fko pivlltxe nìNa'vi
I am learning how one speaks Na'vingly.

I feel like the subject needs to be stated in this case, since it's different from the main subject.  I should probably start a new topic...

Still it seems like we are getting further and further from "I learn to speak Na'vi".

-Keyl

[roger]

Oel nerume fya'ot a tsivun pivlltxe nìNavi.

Oe nerume fte tsivun pivlltxe NìNavi.

[omängum fra'uti]

Still it seems like we are getting further and further from "I learn to speak Na'vi".

-Keyl

I'd disagree and say we jut got a lot closer.  When you say "I learn to speak Na'vi" in English, it seems to me that it's a short form of saying "I learn HOW to speak Na'vi".  So looking at the parts...

Oel nerume fya'ot a X = I learn how X
You're probably right about fko, without it could be taken as "I learn how I speak Na'vi"...  Maybe right in Na'vi, maybe not.  Certainly not right in English.  But with it, the second part "Fko pivlltxe nìNa'vi" - one speaks in Na'vi.  "I learn how one speaks in Na'vi".

[NeotrekkerZ]

Oel nerume fya'ot a X = I learn how X

I know that fya'o means way and indeed it makes a lot of sense to use it as how, but do we have confirmation of its use as a conjunction?  Maybe add it to the list if we don't.  Same for why being used as a conjunction too, now that I think of it.

[omängum fra'uti]

It's not being used as a conjunction.  a is.

The main clause is "I learn the way", then the subordinate clarifies "way" as specifically "The way to speak Na'vi", attributed with an "a" to Fya'o.

[ikngopyu]

Oel nerume fya'ot a tsivun pivlltxe nìNavi.

Oe nerume fte tsivun pivlltxe NìNavi.

Kaltxì ma roger !

Why are you using a double subjunctive ? Is simply oe nerume fte tsun pivlltxe nìNa'vi correct ?

[Keylstxatsmen]

I'd disagree and say we jut got a lot closer.  When you say "I learn to speak Na'vi" in English, it seems to me that it's a short form of saying "I learn HOW to speak Na'vi".  

It seems to me like "to speak" is an infinitive acting as a noun (another example: "I like to speak Na'vi"), but in this case the English does seem to suggest that you do not have the ability to speak Na'vi.  This is probably English's fault.

I still think roger's second sentence is the "best" (most direct) translation without having to add any more words than neccesary.  
Oe nume fte tsivun pivlltxe nìNavi.

-Keyl  

EVEN MORE OFF TOPIC:
For other constuctions, as in "I like to speak Na'vi", the noun-maker tì- is probably the way to go: Tìpllxte leNa'vi oeru prrte' lu, unless of course there are a lot of things attached to the infinitive verb like "I like to hunt stingbats with a spear" which would probably go like:  Taron (ay)ritit tukrufa a fì'u oeru prrte' lu.  The subject of the relative clause being oe, so it can be left out.

It seems like we will have to find something that works on a verb by verb basis.