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

[Lance R. Casey]

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?

The example used was fol 'olem sneyä wutsot, with an ambiguity between "their own individual meals" and "meals for all of them", and as far as I can make out Frommer thought that it would stay unresolved, "just as it is in English".

[Prrton]

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.

I am in complete agreement with this sentiment.

I believe that K. Pawl is very uncomfortable (as of last weekend) with sneyä being used outside of the context of the 3rd person singular and plural.

I can come up with LOTS of other ways that it MIGHT work in other forms, but the jury (= *the judge*) is still out.

Here are some of the things that I personally feel still need addressing:

  - They gave each other gifts.
    (Fol *snor aystxelit tolìng.)

  - The child's request was quite clear. She said, "I want my OWN teylu!"
    (Ätxäle 'eviyä law lolu nìwotx. Poltxe san new oel teyluti oeyä *NÌSNO!

     She has not learned to share well yet. 

Please note that these Na'vi 'solutions' are NOT approved by K. Pawl and may never be in these (or even other) forms.

[wm.annis]

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

Easy, but we're still waiting for a few transitivity rulings — we did ask for both. 

[Plumps]

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.

I am in complete agreement with this sentiment.
[...]
Here are some of the things that I personally feel still need addressing:

  - They gave each other gifts.
    (Fol *snor aystxelit tolìng.)

Agreed

Well, as I remember that was my question whether there would be a solution for »each other« – also to contrust between "they saw themselves (in the mirror)" (clearly a case for ‹äp›) and "they saw each other". The way I understood it, he wanted to think about it...

['eylan na'viyä]

what about fko? can sno be used with it?
it's the pronoun that is the most similar to po i think.

i know, probably you don't have any confirmation about that but do you think it behaves similar?

[wm.annis]

what about fko? can sno be used with it?
it's the pronoun that is the most similar to po i think.

Fkol 'ayem sneyä aywutsot "One will prepare one's own meals."

I can think of no reason this wouldn't be allowed.

[Prrton]

what about fko? can sno be used with it?
it's the pronoun that is the most similar to po i think.

Fkol 'ayem sneyä aywutsot "One will prepare one's own meals."

I can think of no reason this wouldn't be allowed.

I agree with Tsm. Wm. that it could easily go that way, but I also wrote this on the board at one point and didn't get any "pushback":

   Fkor lora 'u fkeyä.

I'm not sure what the semantic difference would be if sneyä were in there in lieu of fkeyä.

It would throw off the sounds of it quite a bit, though. And that was one of the main reasons for that phrase to exist in the first place.