Author Topic: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking  (Read 2183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wm.annis

  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3074
  • Karma: 143
  • Translate the meaning, not the words!
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.
'Awa lì'fya ke tam kawkrr.
A Na'vi Reference Grammar

Offline Prrton

  • Eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2799
  • Karma: 105
  • Rutxe, fmivi. Ftxey fra'u eyawr fuke, ke tsranten.
    • Pìlok leNa'vi a ro MaSempul.org
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2010, 05:44:09 pm »
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


Offline Kemaweyan

  • Eywatsyìp
  • ******
  • *
  • Posts: 14675
  • ua Ukraine
  • Karma: 240
  • Swirä letxon
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2010, 05:51:02 pm »
Wou, irayo. So we have pawm and plltxe are transitive :) I thought those are intransitive... :-\
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Offline Plumps

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 6118
  • Karma: 221
  • ’Ivong Na’vi
    • Aylì'uä Ramunong (Pìlok)
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2010, 06:45:21 am »
Indeed, very improtant … and nobody noticed ::) our attention span is decreasing :P
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.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2010, 06:47:29 am by Plumps »

Offline Tirea Aean

  • The Blue One
  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 9836
  • nv Eywa'eveng
  • Karma: 243
  • Oeri ran lu srung
    • Tirea Aean
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2010, 07:33:29 am »
Indeed, very improtant … and nobody noticed ::) our attention span is decreasing :P
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:

Quote from: Frommer
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

kelku ikranä a hawnventi yom podcast (na'vi-only): https://tirearadio.com/podcast
Learn Na'vi Discord Chat: https://discord.gg/WF6qcmv

Offline Plumps

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 6118
  • Karma: 221
  • ’Ivong Na’vi
    • Aylì'uä Ramunong (Pìlok)
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2010, 08:13:52 am »
We do but it’s not redundant to repeat it … here’s one way of learning a language and its rules: repetition, repetition, repetition ;D Eventually, something will sink in :P

Offline Taronyu

  • Meals on wheels
  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2714
  • Karma: 154
  • Lacho Calad! Drego Morn!
    • Burnt Fen
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2010, 08:03:46 am »
So, would this be a case of ambitransitivity? or ditransitivity? Should we mark that in the lexicon, annis?

Offline Tirea Aean

  • The Blue One
  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 9836
  • nv Eywa'eveng
  • Karma: 243
  • Oeri ran lu srung
    • Tirea Aean
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2010, 12:11:24 pm »
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.

kelku ikranä a hawnventi yom podcast (na'vi-only): https://tirearadio.com/podcast
Learn Na'vi Discord Chat: https://discord.gg/WF6qcmv

Offline Taronyu

  • Meals on wheels
  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2714
  • Karma: 154
  • Lacho Calad! Drego Morn!
    • Burnt Fen
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2010, 12:45:31 pm »
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.

Offline Tirea Aean

  • The Blue One
  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 9836
  • nv Eywa'eveng
  • Karma: 243
  • Oeri ran lu srung
    • Tirea Aean
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2010, 12:49:32 pm »
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.

kelku ikranä a hawnventi yom podcast (na'vi-only): https://tirearadio.com/podcast
Learn Na'vi Discord Chat: https://discord.gg/WF6qcmv

Offline Taronyu

  • Meals on wheels
  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2714
  • Karma: 154
  • Lacho Calad! Drego Morn!
    • Burnt Fen
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2010, 12:50:25 pm »
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.

Offline Plumps

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 6118
  • Karma: 221
  • ’Ivong Na’vi
    • Aylì'uä Ramunong (Pìlok)
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2010, 03:01:16 pm »
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?

Offline Tirea Aean

  • The Blue One
  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 9836
  • nv Eywa'eveng
  • Karma: 243
  • Oeri ran lu srung
    • Tirea Aean
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2010, 03:04:53 pm »
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

kelku ikranä a hawnventi yom podcast (na'vi-only): https://tirearadio.com/podcast
Learn Na'vi Discord Chat: https://discord.gg/WF6qcmv

Offline wm.annis

  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3074
  • Karma: 143
  • Translate the meaning, not the words!
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2010, 04:04:26 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 04:39:28 pm by wm.annis »
'Awa lì'fya ke tam kawkrr.
A Na'vi Reference Grammar

Offline Ataeghane

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: 32
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2010, 12:00:14 pm »
Indeed, very improtant … and nobody noticed ::) our attention span is decreasing :P
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:

Quote from: Frommer
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.

Oer wivìntxu ngal oey keyeyt krr a tse'a sat. Frakrr.

Offline Kemaweyan

  • Eywatsyìp
  • ******
  • *
  • Posts: 14675
  • ua Ukraine
  • Karma: 240
  • Swirä letxon
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2010, 12:09:32 pm »
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.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4756
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2010, 03:09:43 pm »

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.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Offline Carborundum

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
  • Karma: 24
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2010, 03:22:58 pm »

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.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4756
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2010, 07:34:39 pm »

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?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Offline wm.annis

  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3074
  • Karma: 143
  • Translate the meaning, not the words!
Re: Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2010, 07:43:26 pm »
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.
'Awa lì'fya ke tam kawkrr.
A Na'vi Reference Grammar

 

Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
| XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, or the Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi