Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°10: participles, causatives and reflexives, oh my!

[Prrton]

Is it possible that in some ways na'vi treats verbs with dative objects as transitive? That would, if I understand it correctly, explain the use of <äp> and <awn> with si verbs (the only other effect of transitives I can think of is the use of the ergative which might be better explained as being a result of the use of an accusative which would be  in line with antipassive constructions). Of course, the logical conclusion of this is that <äp> and <awn> can be used for all verbs with dative objects for example "oe tstew läpam" and "tute alawnu". That said, such a use of <äp> could be contradictory or at least would sit uneasily with sno (unless sno is restricted from the dative case like it presumably is with the patientive, do we have any examples of sno being used in the dative case?).

I actually won't be surprised if K. Pawl decides to allow snor for oe snor lam tstew (?? nìtstew* ??).

I think that -äp- (and -awn- too for that matter) only has a shot at going into verbs that are semantically transitive. Lam would not fall into that category (in my mind). I can't make heads or tails out of how *tute alawnu means owning person, so I'll just have to say "no comment" to that one.

 

[kewnya txamew'itan]

lawnu was probably a bad example. What I meant was that, if we assume that <awn> can also describe dative objects then, because of the "lu X-DAT" construction, surely "lawnu" would be best translated as "owning".

[wm.annis]

I would like to point out here that sawni would not be the first time grammatical transitivity was given to si verbs.  A reflexive only makes sense on transitive verbs, yet we have säpi such as win säpi.

Ah, but that's a subtly different issue.  This takes is into crazy realms of formal semantics, but the basic gist of this is that a "reflexive" says that the agent and the patient of an act are the same entity.  The effect of this on a transitive verb is to reduce valency, but there's no special reason why it could not also be tacked onto an already intransitive verb, so long as agent and patient can be semantically assigned to the same entity in a way that makes sense.

It is not completely unheard of for some sort of participle form binding to an indirect object or dative form.  But it seems unmotivated by the rest of Na'vi grammar, which is why it makes me woogy.

[Prrton]

lawnu was probably a bad example. What I meant was that, if we assume that <awn> can also describe dative objects then, because of the "lu X-DAT" construction, surely "lawnu" would be best translated as "owning".

I'm really not so sure.  

It doesn't work that way in any of the languages that I know (even when they use something similar to Na'vi's X-DAT lu to express basic possession (English "have").

My guess is that personal "ownership" (in the sense of "you may now make YOUR bow from the wood of the Hometree") would be a different root in Na'vi; or at a minimum would involved some other (adverbial?) qualifier. Just my guess, of course.

I see your logic, but I personally just can't get on board. Ngaytxoa.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

As I say, it was a bad example, perhaps "pawnängkxo" would have been better.

[Prrton]

As I say, it was a bad example, perhaps "pawnängkxo" would have been better.

I personally can grok* that and would be fine using it. But, I have no idea that it will be officially blessed.

[NeotrekkerZ]

Antipassive causatives
We know that when a normally transitive verb is used in an antipassive manner (po taron vs. pol yerikit taron) the subject does not get any case markings, as if it were an intransitive verb.  What happens, then, if you are using the causative form?  A transitive verb and intransitive verb take the causative slightly differently, after all.  But the verb is still transitive, so it is treated like a transitive verb.  The person causing them to do something is still the agentive case, and the person being caused to do it is still the dative case.  No patientive case is used.

oel poru teykaron
I made him hunt

Do we know how this sentence would change if I also said what he hunts, e.g. "I made him hunt a palulukan?"

[Kemaweyan]

We have canon example from Pawl:

  Eytukanìl Neytirir yerikit teykolaron.
  Eytukan had a hexapede hunted by Neytiri.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

We have canon example from Pawl:

  Eytukanìl Neytirir yerikit teykolaron.
  Eytukan had a hexapede hunted by Neytiri.

I know this is canon, but I can't seem to extract this meaning from this sentence. I don't see the 'had a' part here. Or, is this supposed to be 'Eytukan had caused Neytiri to hunt a hexapede'?

[Prrton]

We have canon example from Pawl:

  Eytukanìl Neytirir yerikit teykolaron.
  Eytukan had a hexapede hunted by Neytiri.

I know this is canon, but I can't seem to extract this meaning from this sentence. I don't see the 'had a' part here. Or, is this supposed to be 'Eytukan had caused Neytiri to hunt a hexapede'?

We might more commonly say this (translate this) as:

(1) Eytukan		had		Neytiri		hunt		a hexepede.
(2) Eytukan		made		Neytiri		hunt		a hexepede.
(3) Eytukan		caused		Neytiri		to hunt		a hexepede.

If Eytukan typically has authority over Neytiri then we'd most commonly use the language of (1). The most colloquial way to say it is (2). The final phrasing (3) is correct, but we'd almost never say that in everyday English. -Eyk- (in teykolaron) is the "causative infix", so (3) is the closest to a "semantic literal translation" from Na'vi directly into English.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

As I say, it was a bad example, perhaps "pawnängkxo" would have been better.

I personally can grok* that and would be fine using it. But, I have no idea that it will be officially blessed.

More awkward questions now. If <awn> can be used to describe dative objects, would that make "mawnunge" ambiguous (in some cases, it could usually be inferred from context) as it could mean "that was brought" or "to whom was brought" (deliberately using relative clauses to make it less ambiguous here)?

Also, could <äpeyk> then also be used for something along the lines of "oe por täpeykaron"?

[Kì'eyawn]

Also, could <äpeyk> then also be used for something along the lines of "oe por täpeykaron"?

I don't think so.  Based on our example of drinking oneself to death, i think the reflexive maps onto the person who is "eyk"ed—so your sentence would read, "i made him hunt himself."  Tì'efumì oeyä.

[omängum fra'uti]

äpeyk is "cause oneself to".  I'm not 100% sure how it plays with transitive verbs, but "täpeykaron" would be cause oneself to hunt.

[Prrton]

Also, could <äpeyk> then also be used for something along the lines of "oe por täpeykaron"?

I don't think so.  Based on our example of drinking oneself to death, i think the reflexive maps onto the person who is "eyk"ed—so your sentence would read, "i made him hunt himself."  Tì'efumì oeyä.

All of a sudden we're in an episode of "Predators Invade Pandora"...

I think this would have to be «Oel por oet teykaron.»

[Kemaweyan]

I think it would be snot

  Oel por snot teykaron

[omängum fra'uti]

And just how long have you been waiting for a chance to offer "snot" as a suggestion?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I think it would be snot

  Oel por snot teykaron

This is what I'd have thought assuming that <äpeyk> wouldn't work.

[Kemaweyan]

I think <äpeyk> would mean "I caused myself to ...", kefyak?

[Kì'eyawn]

And just how long have you been waiting for a chance to offer "snot" as a suggestion?

HRH

['Oma Tirea]

I think <äpeyk> would mean "I caused myself to ...", kefyak?

Srane.  I questioned it in the Intermediate section, and now we have confirmation

And just how long have you been waiting for a chance to offer "snot" as a suggestion?

HRH

HRRH nìteng XD