Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking

[wm.annis]

I cannot believe I forgot this.  It was a fairly important question at the time.  So important that it was listed in a completely different part of my notebook.  It missed my main list for these posts at the time.  I was thinking about the issue recently, and realized it wasn't in my reference grammar.  Which led to the realization this got skipped.  (People who want to hear the discussion should go to 50:45 on Ultxa6.mp3).

Transitivity with Verbs of Speaking
This came out of a discussion thread which I cannot find now.  The issue was, if I say, "she asked me that" what case should "me" go in?  There were partisans of the topical, though many thought the dative was the best bet.  That was the decision: with a verb of speaking, the person addressed goes into the dative:

  Pol oeru polawm tsat She asked me that.

Second decision: when you use a san... sìk clause, verbs of speaking count as intransitive for purposes of grammar.

  Po oeru polawm san nga kä peseng? She asked me "where are you going?"

But if you use a noun direct object, the verb is treated as transitive, as in the example above with tsat, or:

  Srake nìngay ngal poltxe fì'ut? You really said this?

I have updated the meeting wiki notes, too.

[Prrton]

I cannot believe I forgot this.  It was a fairly important question at the time.  So important that it was listed in a completely different part of my notebook.  It missed my main list for these posts at the time.  I was thinking about the issue recently, and realized it wasn't in my reference grammar.  Which led to the realization this got skipped.  (People who want to hear the discussion should go to 50:45 on Ultxa6.mp3).

Transitivity with Verbs of Speaking
This came out of a discussion thread which I cannot find now.  The issue was, if I say, "she asked me that" what case should "me" go in?  There were partisans of the topical, though many thought the dative was the best bet.  That was the decision: with a verb of speaking, the person addressed goes into the dative:

  Pol oeru polawm tsat She asked me that.

Second decision: when you use a san... sìk clause, verbs of speaking count as intransitive for purposes of grammar.

  Po oeru polawm san nga kä peseng? She asked me "where are you going?"

But if you use a noun direct object, the verb is treated as transitive, as in the example above with tsat, or:

  Srake nìngay ngal poltxe fì'ut? You really said this?

I have updated the meeting wiki notes, too.

I knew the 2nd thing, but not the first.

Seiyi irayo

[Kemaweyan]

Wou, irayo. So we have pawm and plltxe are transitive I thought those are intransitive...

[Plumps]

Indeed, very improtant ... and nobody noticed our attention span is decreasing
Thanks for a belated up-to-date

Ma Kem, pawm would even count as ditransitive, as far as I know. But it's logical, isn't it? At least for pawm, it was clear, but plltxe was a bit unclear.

[Tirea Aean]

Indeed, very improtant ... and nobody noticed our attention span is decreasing
Thanks for a belated up-to-date

Ma Kem, pawm would even count as ditransitive, as far as I know. But it's logical, isn't it? At least for pawm, it was clear, but plltxe was a bit unclear.

but even so, its my understanding that indirect speech is WRONG in Na'vi and therefore instead of using the transitivity, use san sìk sandwich.

we have this example of plltxe being trans:

Poltxe Neytiril aylì'ut a frakrr 'ok seyä layu oer.

he wasnt quoting her speech, just reporting that she said something. its fine to do this as long as you dont start to use the transitivity as an excuse for indirect speech quotation constructions such as

Poltxe Neytiril futa Tsyeyk lu skxawng.

it should be

Poltxe Neytiri san Tsyeyk lu skxawng (sìk)

OH and the same thing i believe stands for pawm and peng.

no saying this:
She asked if he is ready. (indirect speech again)

or this:
I told you that he would do that. (again.)

the structure should be more like:
She asked, "is he ready?"
I told you, "he would do that"

/unnecessaryrant

[Plumps]

We do but it's not redundant to repeat it ... here's one way of learning a language and its rules: repetition, repetition, repetition Eventually, something will sink in

[Taronyu]

So, would this be a case of ambitransitivity? or ditransitivity? Should we mark that in the lexicon, annis?

[Tirea Aean]

So, would this be a case of ambitransitivity? or ditransitivity? Should we mark that in the lexicon, annis?

Taronyu, I have noticed verbs in the dictionary marked as just

v.

instead of vi. or vt.

what am I to make of this? some of these seem to be transitive in English.

[Taronyu]

So, would this be a case of ambitransitivity? or ditransitivity? Should we mark that in the lexicon, annis?

Taronyu, I have noticed verbs in the dictionary marked as just

v.

instead of vi. or vt.

what am I to make of this? some of these seem to be transitive in English.

Those are ones that I am not sure of. I emailed frommer a while ago asking about them. Maybe I should email again. Just because they're transitive in English doesn't mean that they will be in Na'vi.

[Tirea Aean]

So, would this be a case of ambitransitivity? or ditransitivity? Should we mark that in the lexicon, annis?

Taronyu, I have noticed verbs in the dictionary marked as just

v.

instead of vi. or vt.

what am I to make of this? some of these seem to be transitive in English.

Those are ones that I am not sure of. I emailed frommer a while ago asking about them. Maybe I should email again. Just because they're transitive in English doesn't mean that they will be in Na'vi.

Precisely.

[Taronyu]

I don't get your point. Do you want me to unmark vtr.s? I have them marked that way because we've seen them that way.

[Plumps]

I think he means (affirmative) it's better to be sure about it
Wasn't Frommer going to give you guys a list of all the verbs with their transitivity marked?

[Tirea Aean]

I don't get your point. Do you want me to unmark vtr.s? I have them marked that way because we've seen them that way.

well no, i was agreeing with you there about the fact that the currently unmarked ones we really cant lean on English to know.

I think he means (affirmative) it's better to be sure about it
Wasn't Frommer going to give you guys a list of all the verbs with their transitivity marked?

He's supposed to

[wm.annis]

So, would this be a case of ambitransitivity? or ditransitivity? Should we mark that in the lexicon, annis?

Ok.  Today is the day that I've officially declared my hatred for the term "ambitransitive."  How helpful is that in a language with at least three valencies, maybe four if you're feeling theoretically bold?

In an ideal world, with the ideal Lexicon Management Software, the Grand Unified Dictionary that will resolve all contradictions and make the lion lay down with the lamb, verbs of speaking in Na'vi would have at least two, maybe three, subentries — one for each transitivity, with examples.

Edit: (erm, forgot the point)  It seems best to say that plltxe is both ditransitive and intransitive.  Somehow.

[Ataeghane]

Indeed, very improtant ... and nobody noticed our attention span is decreasing
Thanks for a belated up-to-date

Ma Kem, pawm would even count as ditransitive, as far as I know. But it's logical, isn't it? At least for pawm, it was clear, but plltxe was a bit unclear.

but even so, its my understanding that indirect speech is WRONG in Na'vi and therefore instead of using the transitivity, use san sìk sandwich.

we have this example of plltxe being trans:

Poltxe Neytiril aylì'ut a frakrr 'ok seyä layu oer.

he wasnt quoting her speech, just reporting that she said something. its fine to do this as long as you dont start to use the transitivity as an excuse for indirect speech quotation constructions such as

Poltxe Neytiril futa Tsyeyk lu skxawng.

it should be

Poltxe Neytiri san Tsyeyk lu skxawng (sìk)

OH and the same thing i believe stands for pawm and peng.

no saying this:
She asked if he is ready. (indirect speech again)

or this:
I told you that he would do that. (again.)

the structure should be more like:
She asked, "is he ready?"
I told you, "he would do that"

/unnecessaryrant

That is what I don't get.

If Poltxe Neytiril futa Tsyeyk lu skxawng is wrong, then it's clear that Poltxe Neytiril fì'ut a Tsyeyk lu skxawng is wrong as well, isn't it? But we can always exchange fì'ut for faylì'ut. Is there any diffrence then? Poltxe Neytiril faylì'ut a Tsyeyk lu skxawng. Gramatically the same. We just used another noun. But if that's still wrong, why is Poltxe Neytiril aylì'ut a frakrr 'ok seyä layu oer correct? Now the only diffrence is between these two sub-ordinate clauses.

[Kemaweyan]

Poltxe Neytiril futa Tsyeyk lu skxawng grammatically isn't wrong. But that's wrong stylistically And there is no difference between futa and fì'ut a. Same with Poltxe Neytiril faylì'ut a Tsyeyk lu skxawng, stylistically it's wrong, because there is indirect speech.

However Poltxe Neytiril aylì'ut a frakrr 'ok seyä layu oer is correct, because frakrr 'ok seyä layu oer is not her speech. It's just attributive clause to aylì'ut:

  Neytiri said the words which I'll always remember.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

If Poltxe Neytiril futa Tsyeyk lu skxawng is wrong, then it's clear that Poltxe Neytiril fì'ut a Tsyeyk lu skxawng is wrong as well, isn't it? But we can always exchange fì'ut for faylì'ut. Is there any diffrence then? Poltxe Neytiril faylì'ut a Tsyeyk lu skxawng. Gramatically the same. We just used another noun. But if that's still wrong, why is Poltxe Neytiril aylì'ut a frakrr 'ok seyä layu oer correct? Now the only diffrence is between these two sub-ordinate clauses.

Additionally, you cannot exchange fì'ut for faylì'ut. fì`ut means 'that thing', and becomes a subordinate clause marker when used with a: fì`ut a or futa ora fì`ut. faylì'ut is a contraction of fay- 'these' (and itself is a contraction of fì- and ay+) and lì`ut 'word', and means 'those words'.

Learning how to properly use the various subordinate clause markers has been one of the (at least for me) more challenging things there is to learn. I am much better now than I was a few months ago, but there is still much to learn.

[Carborundum]

If Poltxe Neytiril futa Tsyeyk lu skxawng is wrong, then it's clear that Poltxe Neytiril fì'ut a Tsyeyk lu skxawng is wrong as well, isn't it? But we can always exchange fì'ut for faylì'ut. Is there any diffrence then? Poltxe Neytiril faylì'ut a Tsyeyk lu skxawng. Gramatically the same. We just used another noun. But if that's still wrong, why is Poltxe Neytiril aylì'ut a frakrr 'ok seyä layu oer correct? Now the only diffrence is between these two sub-ordinate clauses.

Additionally, you cannot exchange fì'ut for faylì'ut. fì`ut means 'that thing', and becomes a subordinate clause marker when used with a: fì`ut a or futa ora fì`ut. faylì'ut is a contraction of fay- 'these' (and itself is a contraction of fì- and ay+) and lì`ut 'word', and means 'those words'.

Learning how to properly use the various subordinate clause markers has been one of the (at least for me) more challenging things there is to learn. I am much better now than I was a few months ago, but there is still much to learn.

Fì'ut a is not special in any way, except that it is common enough to be contracted into futa in daily speech. Faylì'ut a is entirely correct, and is simply another, less common subordinate clause marker.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Fì'ut a is not special in any way, except that it is common enough to be contracted into futa in daily speech. Faylì'ut a is entirely correct, and is simply another, less common subordinate clause marker.

Here's proof then, that there is much to learn.

Is a general thing then, that constructions with the following formula {fì-, fay-, tsa-}noun{case marker of some sort, most often patientive} a are subordinate/relative clause markers?

[wm.annis]

Is a general thing then, that constructions with the following formula {fì-, fay-, tsa-}noun{case marker of some sort, most often patientive} a are subordinate/relative clause markers?

I would say not...

Fì'ut a is not special in any way, except that it is common enough to be contracted into futa in daily speech. Faylì'ut a is entirely correct, and is simply another, less common subordinate clause marker.

Errm.  I don't think that's right.

There's an entire subfield of linguistics on grammaticalization, the process whereby normal words are bleached of their ordinary sense by common use, and become over time nothing more than markers of particular sorts of grammatical markers.  The use of a with fì'u smells highly grammaticalized to me.  Frommer's use is extremely regular with these — futa/a fì'ut always occurs in certain expected constructions.

Now, any clause introduced by (or ending in, depending on how you decided to word things) a is necessarily a subordinate relative clause.  But that's not the same thing as saying fì-N-CASE a is a general pattern for marking subordination.