Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #6: tuté, alo; slu; kan

[Prrton]

(1) A couple of clarifications on on stress.

Tuté

We've known for a long time that the difference between the word tute (person) and tute (woman) is the stress on the first syllable vs. the second. Normally Na'vi does not use any accent marks or other diacritics than ì and ä to distinguish these sounds fundamentally from i and a. But K. Pawl has officially recognized the spelling tuté for "woman".

Alo

Until the Language Workshop we've had the word alo (time, turn, instance, one of a number of repeated or recurring actions) stressed on the 2nd syllable as alo. K. Pawl has now corrected this to alo. This is more consistent with how it behaves in the words 'awlo, melo, pxelo, hayalo, etc.

(2) Word Order with Slu

Because of Na'vi's flexible word order, it is possible to create sentences like Taronyu slu tsamsiyu. It can be unclear which noun became which if enough context is lacking or the situation is complicated. In a case like Po slu tsamsiyu., the speaker and listener(s) already know who po is. If they did not, there would be no pronoun in play. There is no ambiguity in this scenario. But if you have any lack of clarity about the meaning, you can frame the outcome of slu with ne.

 Taronyu slu ne tsamsiyu.
 The hunter becomes a warrior.

    or

 Ne taronyu slu tsamsiyu.
 The warrior becomes a hunter.

Ne is the regular directional adposition. We're already familiar with it. Now its role has be metaphorically extended for this grammatical construct (specifically with slu). It can be used before or after the predicate, which is the 'outcome' of the the becoming. Taronyune slu tsamsiyu. is also a valid way to say "The warrior becomes a hunter."

(3) To be "about to" to do something... intention in the past.

Much has been asked and said about -ìmìy- already. It occurs once in the film dialog when Neytiri is justifying to Eytukan why she brought Jake to the Hometree. She intended to kill him when she first saw him in the forest, but then held back when there was a sign from Eywa (the atokirina' touching her arrowhead.) It was revealed during the Workshop that this combination of -ìm- + -ìy- was an error. One way or the other, this is not 'proper' Na'vi and it should never be used by those of us who are trying to learn correct grammar.

However, there is a valid way to say this in Na'vi. The verb kan (aim) can be used modally in all tenses to express intention of the subject to do something. Neytiri's line might better have come out:

 Oe pot k‹arm›an tsp‹iv›ang...
 I was intending to kill him...

The syntax of kan as a modal is like new, that is, either kan + V‹iv› or kan futa V‹iv›.

 Oel keran futa frapo pivähem txon'ongsre.
 I intend for everyone to arrive before nightfall.

 Po kayan ngivop mipa pxesìrolit txo por tsun srung sivi peyä meylan.
 He will be of a mind to create 3 new songs if his two friends can help him out.

There is also a well-known future intentional mood infix (-s-) in Navi that combines with -ìy- and -ay- to form -ìsy- and -asy-. It is only relevant in the future and it expresses the speaker's intent about his or her own upcoming actions. When a speaker uses these infixes his or her mind is made up unambiguously.

The matter of how to express scenarios involving "about to" in the past when there is no overt intention on the part of the subject (e.g.: I was about to fall off of a cliff...) is still under consideration by K. Pawl.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  Edit: Corrected missing -l on oel in example above:

      Oel keran futa frapo pivähem txon'ongsre.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Tirea Aean]

How is it we can use futa with kan? How can we say oe pot kan tspivang? That destroys my current knowledge of agentive/patientive...

[Kemaweyan]

Irayo, ma Prrton

Ma Tirea Aean, I think that would be oel kan futa ... I think it's wrong: Oe keran futa frapo pivähem txon'ongsre and it would be Oel keran futa frapo pivähem txon'ongsre Please correct me if I'm mistaken

[Prrton]

This I inherited from the aggregated notes:

  The syntax of kan as a modal is like new, that is, either kan + V‹iv› or kan futa V‹iv›.

That does indicate that Tsm. Kemaweyan's suggestion of «oel» should be correct.

My original understanding (months and months ago) of NEW was:

  Oe new ngal yivom teyluti.
  I want you to eat teylu.

My current understanding is that we must say:

  Oel new FUTA ngal yivom teyluti.
  I want THAT you eat teylu.

If everyone else's understanding is the same, then Tsm. Kemaweyan's suggestion should fix my mistake, kefyak?

[wm.annis]

If everyone else's understanding is the same, then Tsm. Kemaweyan's suggestion should fix my mistake, kefyak?

Mllte pohu oe kop.

[Prrton]

How is it we can use futa with kan? How can we say oe pot kan tspivang? That destroys my current knowledge of agentive/patientive...

Ma Tirea,

Does this still seem problematic to you? «Oe» does not take an agentive «-l» because it is the subject of the MAIN verb «kan», which here -- as is the case with «new», is intransitive. «Pot» takes the patientive «-t» because it is the object of the theoretical outcome of the transitive verb «tspang». If this is outdated or deprecated, I'm out of the loop.
That's totally possible...

[wm.annis]

If this is outdated or deprecated, I'm out of the loop.

No, that's right.  The subject of a modal takes the intransitive subject, but if the verb controlled by the modal is transitive, then it (the controlled verb) can still take a normal direct object — without triggering the agentive ending on the subject of the modal.  For example, this line from the First Blog post:

 Fayupxaremì oe payängkxo teri horen lì'fyayä leNa'vi fpi sute a tsun srekrr tsat sivar.
 In these messages I wil chat about Na'vi grammar for people who were able to use it before.

Edit: clearer, perhaps:

ulte frapo—ftxey sngä'iyu ftxey tsulfätu—tsìyevun fìtsenge rivun 'uot lesar
and that everyone — whether beginner or master — will be able to find something useful here.

[Kemaweyan]

Does this still seem problematic to you? «Oe» does not take an agentive «-l» because it is the subject of the MAIN verb «kan», which here -- as is the case with «new», is intransitive. «Pot» takes the patientive «-t» because it is the object of the theoretical outcome of the transitive verb «tspang». If this is outdated or deprecated, I'm out of the loop.
That's totally possible...

Yeah, I totally agree with this. But when we use futa as object of verb new (or kan), we also must use -l with subject (oel).

[Prrton]

Does this still seem problematic to you? «Oe» does not take an agentive «-l» because it is the subject of the MAIN verb «kan», which here -- as is the case with «new», is intransitive. «Pot» takes the patientive «-t» because it is the object of the theoretical outcome of the transitive verb «tspang». If this is outdated or deprecated, I'm out of the loop.
That's totally possible...

Yeah, I totally agree with this. But when we use futa as object of verb new (or kan), we also must use -l with subject (oel).

I believe you are 100% correct. I very commonly (as a bad personal habit, influenced by the fact that -が (-ga) in Japanese is used both for transitive and intransitive verbs) drop «-l» when it is absolutely required in proper Na'vi sentences. I should have double-checked my example before pressing "post". Thank you for catching it and offering the correction for my error.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

So, could the last several posts be summarized as follows?

The subject of a modal takes the intransitive subject, but if the verb controlled by the modal is transitive, then it (the controlled verb) can still take a normal direct object — without triggering the agentive ending on the subject of the modal. The exception to this rule is if futa is used between the modal and controlled verb.

And if this is correct, why is it correct? What is special about futa in this regard? Or to ask this question another way, what is not special about nouns other than futa, that one might stick between a modal and its controlled verb?

[Tirea Aean]

precisely:

my knowledge was this:

oe tsun tivaron yerikit
oe new tsive'a pot.
oel new futa poti tsive'a (same as #2)

oe kan poti tsive'a

I was perhaps blown by the clause mixing you did:

[oe kan] + [(oel) poti tspivang] = oe kan poti tspivang (same structure as zene)
[oe pot kan tspivang] = clause mixing?

srry thats what got me.

i see what you did ther. you tried to keep with the original "oel pot tsp<fail>ang" and tried to apply the new kan to that and say "oe pot kan tspivang" but that to makes no sense without agentive, but IF it HAD agentive it STILL owuldnt be consistent with the vi natureof kan.

[Prrton]

«New» is a somewhat 'funny' verb in that it has transitive and intransitive properties in Na'vi depending on its usage.

I believe that when it behaves modally directly with a slave verb in -iv- that it is subject to the rule that it must be treated as intransitive.

  Oe new pot tspivang.

     or

  Oe pot new tspivang.

  I want to kill him.

I am under the impression that these are both correct. The first is MORE common, however.

If new is used with a typical nominal object, it becomes wholly transitive.

  Oel new tsat. / Tsat new oel. / New oel tsat. / Tsat oel new. / New tsat oel.

  I want that.

'That' is the object of my desire. My desire 'acts' on it directly.

In the futa construct, futa behaves like a regular direct object (100% parallel to tsat). So:

  Oel new futa...

The reason that the verb goes to the subjunctive in the subordinate clause attached to the desire by futa is that the 'wanter' is desirous of something (a condition or outcome) that is not yet a reality. There are probably still some open questions about the subjunctive in certain contexts that make the seem a bit blurry too.

As I mentioned earlier, I took on posting this using aggregated notes. I did not personally hear and there on the spot internalize that K. Pawl said that kan as a modal would mimic the behavior of new precisely, but it does make sense to me. Both verbs, new and kan used modally for "intend", have a relationship to the desires/motivations/intentions of the speaker. And, kan, in its original meaning of "aim" easily takes a direct object (like new).

  Oel kan swizawit oeyä tsopìr yerikä.

  I aim my arrow at the yerik's lung.

In English WANT and AIM can also be both transitive and intransitive.

If anyone knows more about that line in the aggregated notes than I, PLEASE chime in now.

[Dreamlight]

(1) A couple of clarifications on on stress.

Tuté

We've known for a long time that the difference between the word tute (person) and tute (woman) is the stress on the first syllable vs. the second. Normally Na'vi does not use any accent marks or other diacritics than ì and ä to distinguish these sounds fundamentally from i and a. But K. Pawl has officially recognized the spelling tuté for "woman".

Just as a note, if you need to type this word, the "é" can be done with alt-130.

['Oma Tirea]

(1) A couple of clarifications on on stress.

Tuté

We've known for a long time that the difference between the word tute (person) and tute (woman) is the stress on the first syllable vs. the second. Normally Na'vi does not use any accent marks or other diacritics than ì and ä to distinguish these sounds fundamentally from i and a. But K. Pawl has officially recognized the spelling tuté for "woman".

Wou, another character we have to struggle with unless its usage is optional

Looking back at some of the possible homophones, I caught wind a word like "hawnuyu" can be spoken with two different stress patterns.  Here I could see an ú being practical, although could the acute accent apply to all of the situations where writing out a word would otherwise become a homograph?

['Oma Tirea]

Just as a note, if you need to type this word, the "é" can be done with alt-130.

Also, ALT+0233 = é
...and ALT+0201 = É

[Dreamlight]

Just as a note, if you need to type this word, the "é" can be done with alt-130.

Also, ALT+0233 = é
...and ALT+0201 = É

And Alt-144 = É as well.

[omängum fra'uti]

I don't know if it has ever been confirmed that you can mix up the order in the modal short form...  Though we do have the dialog "Pot tsun oe tspivang nìftue" from Tsu'tey.  Yet one more thing that needs to be clarified (Unless we have another example of that order, which is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

On some of the other comments in the thread...
Hawnu-yu and hawn-uy-u would both be stressed on the first syllable, so it is up to context to clear it up.

Futa is not "special" really.  It is a contraction of fì'ut a, so it has the built in patientative case, hence why it is proper to use oel with futa.

[Prrton]

(1) A couple of clarifications on on stress.

Tuté

We've known for a long time that the difference between the word tute (person) and tute (woman) is the stress on the first syllable vs. the second. Normally Na'vi does not use any accent marks or other diacritics than ì and ä to distinguish these sounds fundamentally from i and a. But K. Pawl has officially recognized the spelling tuté for "woman".

Wou, another character we have to struggle with unless its usage is optional

Looking back at some of the possible homophones, I caught wind a word like "hawnuyu" can be spoken with two different stress patterns.  Here I could see an ú being practical, although could the acute accent apply to all of the situations where writing out a word would otherwise become a homograph?

I am under the impression that the correct spelling of the word for "woman" is simply tuté. To my knowledge, nothing was discussed about it being optional.

Already mentioned by O.F. before I finished typing... The verb «hawnu» is stressed on the first syllable. I don't understand where hawnuyu or hawnuyu would come from. Adding -yu should not change the stress. I do believe that Wes Studi (as Eytukan) mispronounced taronyu as taronyu in the film, but, I'm firmly under the impression that it's properly interpreted as an error.

[Dreamlight]

(1) A couple of clarifications on on stress.

Tuté

We've known for a long time that the difference between the word tute (person) and tute (woman) is the stress on the first syllable vs. the second. Normally Na'vi does not use any accent marks or other diacritics than ì and ä to distinguish these sounds fundamentally from i and a. But K. Pawl has officially recognized the spelling tuté for "woman".

Wou, another character we have to struggle with unless its usage is optional

Looking back at some of the possible homophones, I caught wind a word like "hawnuyu" can be spoken with two different stress patterns.  Here I could see an ú being practical, although could the acute accent apply to all of the situations where writing out a word would otherwise become a homograph?

I am under the impression that the correct spelling of the word for "woman" is simply tuté. To my knowledge, nothing was discussed about it being optional.

Already mentioned by O.F. before I finished typing... The verb «hawnu» is stressed on the first syllable. I don't understand where hawnuyu or hawnuyu would come from. Adding -yu should not change the stress. I do believe that Wes Studi (as Eytukan) mispronounced taronyu as taronyu in the film, but, I'm firmly under the impression that it's properly interpreted as an error.

Probably so.  Neytiri says "taronyu".

['Oma Tirea]

(1) A couple of clarifications on on stress.

Tuté

We've known for a long time that the difference between the word tute (person) and tute (woman) is the stress on the first syllable vs. the second. Normally Na'vi does not use any accent marks or other diacritics than ì and ä to distinguish these sounds fundamentally from i and a. But K. Pawl has officially recognized the spelling tuté for "woman".

Wou, another character we have to struggle with unless its usage is optional

Looking back at some of the possible homophones, I caught wind a word like "hawnuyu" can be spoken with two different stress patterns.  Here I could see an ú being practical, although could the acute accent apply to all of the situations where writing out a word would otherwise become a homograph?

I am under the impression that the correct spelling of the word for "woman" is simply tuté. To my knowledge, nothing was discussed about it being optional.

Already mentioned by O.F. before I finished typing... The verb «hawnu» is stressed on the first syllable. I don't understand where hawnuyu or hawnuyu would come from. Adding -yu should not change the stress. I do believe that Wes Studi (as Eytukan) mispronounced taronyu as taronyu in the film, but, I'm firmly under the impression that it's properly interpreted as an error.

Probably so.  Neytiri says "taronyu".

Hmm..  maybe then it's hawnuyu and hawnúyu.