Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #1: Updates from the Language Workshop

Started by wm.annis, October 06, 2010, 06:59:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wm.annis

Quote from: Kemaweyan on October 06, 2010, 07:43:58 PM
Quote from: wm.annis on October 06, 2010, 07:35:42 PM
First, I'd almost always want to put the topical at the start of the clause.

I agree, but I think it isn't a rule :) We have free word order ;)

Sort of.  There are still strong word order habits Paul has, and putting the topic at the beginning is a very strong one of his.  It is broken only once, in a poem (the Hunt Song).  Even when using the topical for inalienable possession, when you'd most expect the topical to shift, it still sits at the start of the clause some distance from the possessum:

  oeri ta peyä fahew akewong ontu teya längu
  oeri nì'i'a tsyokx zoslolu

In Human languages that have formal topical marking, it is very common for them to move to the head of the clause.

Kemaweyan

It's just my idea. I've analyzed all last changes and I think the common rule of infix position may be thus:

If the verb have two or more syllables, there can change only those syllables which came from verb root(s).

For example, the verb tsunslu consists two syllables which are verb roots tsun and slu (both are verbs). So we may put infixes in the both syllables. But the verb pänutìng consists one verb root tìng and noun root pänu, therefore all infixes must be only in second syllable (which is verb root). Your thoughts?
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Kì'eyawn

Quote from: Kemaweyan on October 07, 2010, 09:50:35 PM
It's just my idea. I've analyzed all last changes and I think the common rule of infix position may be thus:

If the verb have two or more syllables, there can change only those syllables which came from verb root(s).

For example, the verb tsunslu consists two syllables which are verb roots tsun and slu (both are verbs). So we may put infixes in the both syllables. But the verb pänutìng consists one verb root tìng and noun root pänu, therefore all infixes must be only in second syllable (which is verb root). Your thoughts?

That's often true, but...

oh hell.

I have in my notes that zoslu has all the infixes in the last syllable, but William has it here as a 1-2 verb.

Ma William...?
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

Kemaweyan

Quote from: Kì'eyawn on October 07, 2010, 09:56:29 PM
but William has it here as a 1-2 verb.

Yeah, it was the reason why I think so. In his blog Pawl also wrote zosl●●u and if it was changed.. But now I don't know, if you have zosl●●u too...
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Prrton

Quote from: Kì'eyawn on October 07, 2010, 09:56:29 PM
Quote from: Kemaweyan on October 07, 2010, 09:50:35 PM
It's just my idea. I've analyzed all last changes and I think the common rule of infix position may be thus:

If the verb have two or more syllables, there can change only those syllables which came from verb root(s).

For example, the verb tsunslu consists two syllables which are verb roots tsun and slu (both are verbs). So we may put infixes in the both syllables. But the verb pänutìng consists one verb root tìng and noun root pänu, therefore all infixes must be only in second syllable (which is verb root). Your thoughts?

That's often true, but...

oh hell.

I have in my notes that zoslu has all the infixes in the last syllable, but William has it here as a 1-2 verb.

Ma William...?

There are cases like «tungzup» where «.zup» functions like a non-verbal element (the object of the "allowing") in which Paul has said to me that the infixes would go into the verbal side («t••ung.») only. That's not the way it's marked in the vocabulary here. It seems that it's the other way around as documented here. Was «tungzup» clarified over the weekend?

If there is clearly a non-verbal element (like «pänu»), all of the infixes will go in the opposite (verbal) part of the word.

The new verb «muwìntxu» (23) is derived ultimately from «mu(nge)+wìntxu». All of the infixes go in «w•ìntx•u».

I believe that «zosl••u» (22) is correct in this fashion.



Kì'eyawn

Okay, so to clarify:

When a verb is a compound, you absolutely cannot have infixes in non-verb bits.  But when it's a compound of multiple verbs, infixes can usually go in both, but it's unpredictable.  Kefyak?

And as for the individual verbs...we'll wait on the document, which i believe Karyu Pawl said he's going to give to Taronyu.
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

Kemaweyan

There was t 1 ngz 2 up on the whiteboard ??? As for verb muwìntxu - that's clear: this verb has 3 syllables, so by common rule only last and pre-last ones can be changed.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Prrton

Quote from: Kemaweyan on October 07, 2010, 10:22:55 PM
There was t 1 ngz 2 up on the whiteboard ??? As for verb muwìntxu - that's clear: this verb has 3 syllables, so by common rule only last and pre-last ones can be changed.

Perhaps he's changed his mind about «t•ung.z•up» (12), then. Whatever he said over the weekend should be taken as current and correct.


Prrton


Here he's explaining that because both elements of tsunslu are verbal, it's a 12.



The KLL element of kllfro' is nominal ('ground') so it's a 22.



Kì'eyawn

eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

wm.annis

Quote from: Kì'eyawn on October 07, 2010, 09:56:29 PMI have in my notes that zoslu has all the infixes in the last syllable, but William has it here as a 1-2 verb.

Ma William...?

Ngaytxoa.  That is a terrible, terrible typo on my part.  Zoslu is 22.  I may have had tsunslu on the brain.  Fixed in the main post.

Quote from: Kì'eyawn on October 07, 2010, 10:20:59 PM
And as for the individual verbs...we'll wait on the document, which i believe Karyu Pawl said he's going to give to Taronyu.

Both Taronyu and I have a copy of that now.  Not yet sure how it'll be integrated into the main dictionary/ies.

Lance R. Casey

How big a workload would it be to sift out the non-trivial ones, for separate listing hereabouts?

// Lance R. Casey

Plumps

Okay ... if it isn't decided yet if sno can appear in other instances, is it then even possible that it would appear in this form ever alone? I can't put my head around other uses than sneyä with its current meaning...

Ideas?

Nyx

Maybe it could be used in some kind of relative clause where you can't omit the pronoun but still want to avoid ambiguity?

Kemaweyan

I understand sno as a pointer to person who commits the action. So if I'm talking about me, sno is a pointer to me:

  oe kä ne kelku sneyä
  I go to my home

The same is with "you":

  nga kä ne kelku sneyä
  you go to your home

I think there is no difference between oeyä/ngeyä and sneyä in this case, i.e. meaning of phrases oe kä ne kelku sneyä and oe kä ne kelku oeyä is the same.

Also with "he/she" sno indicates to the same person who commits an action:

  po kä ne kelku sneyä
  he go to his own home

Besides if I speak about many people (fo), sno indicates to everyone of them:

  fo kä ne helku sneyä
  they go to their own homes (everyone of them goes to his own home)

And there would be another meaning if I use feyä:

  fo kä ne helku feyä
  they go to their homes

I think it means that homes are their common.

P.S. It's just my opinion ;) Maybe I think so because the same is in other languages which I know :)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Lance R. Casey

Quote from: Plumps on October 08, 2010, 02:59:11 PM
Okay ... if it isn't decided yet if sno can appear in other instances, is it then even possible that it would appear in this form ever alone? I can't put my head around other uses than sneyä with its current meaning...

Ideas?


Aysäfpìlo:

Fìtskot oel ngerop snofpi
Plltxe nga snohu srak?
Poel kä'olärìp poanti ftu sno neto

// Lance R. Casey

Kemaweyan

Quote from: Lance R. Casey on October 08, 2010, 03:27:01 PM
Aysäfpìlo:

Fìtskot oel ngerop snofpi
Plltxe nga snohu srak?
Poel kä'olärìp poanti ftu sno neto

Yeah, I think that's right! ;)
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Plumps

Irayo, ma Kem – ke lu lì'u alu sneyä a oeru lu tìngäzìk ki lì'u alu sno ;) Tslolam sneyä nìwotx
Thanks, Kem – it's not sneyä I'm having the problem with, but sno ;) I understand sneyä just fine.

My point is, that it seems (at least for now, where sno has no other derivatives) that you cannot have a sentence in which the form »sno« appears, right?

edit: Ma Lance ... txantsana pxesìkenong!
Sounds plausible to me ... and interesting examples. Thanks ;)


wm.annis

Quote from: Plumps on October 08, 2010, 02:59:11 PM
Okay ... if it isn't decided yet if sno can appear in other instances, is it then even possible that it would appear in this form ever alone? I can't put my head around other uses than sneyä with its current meaning...

Several of these issues were discussed during the workshop.

I specifically asked about using sno with first or second person antecedents.  As I recall, Frommer made a face, though he didn't rule it out entirely, at least not yet.

In some languages reflexive pronouns can have interesting jobs in subordinate clauses.  "He knows that he will die."  Who is the second "he"?  It's the same problem as the issue of the dinner.

  pol omum futa po tayerkup (someone else will die)
  ?* pol omum futa sno tayerkup (same as the subject)

Again, I mentioned this during the workshop, though I don't know if Frommer wrote all of this down.

I personally would avoid everything but sneyä with a 3rd person antecedent for now, until Frommer has time to cogitate more about the other issues we raised.

Kì'eyawn

Edit: Ninja'd by William, but here's what i wrote.

Ma Lance, ngeyä aysìhenong txantsan lu, irayo.
Lance, your examples are excellent, thanks.

Ma Kemaweyan, fpìl oel futa ngaru tìyawr, slä...
Kemaweyan, i think you're right, but...

Hìtxoa, fìtxeleri plltxe nìNa'vi a fì'u, oeru lu ngäzìk nìhawng.  Lu oeru tìkin a plltxe nì'Ìnglìsì.
Sorry, talking about this topic in Na'vi is too difficult for me.  I need to speak in English.

We discussed at the meeting something like your examples, "Fo kä ne kelku feyä" vs. "Fo kä ne kelku sneyä," and whether the second contains the suggestion that the house belongs to all of the people, whereas the first means that each person went to his own house.  I don't know if we reached a conclusion, though.

Tuteol tsati zerok srak?
Does someone remember?
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...