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

[omängum fra'uti]

On Sunday afternoon, under the lovely canopy of the forest, there was some discussion related to participles, causatives and reflexives, and how they relate to each other and some other odd situations.

Participles
First, we (In the community as a general whole) have been saying for a long time that participles are pre-first.  This all falls to a misreading of Frommer's language log post ages ago, and it is in fact not the case.  Participle infixes (<us> and <awn>) are first position, and can not combine with any other first position infixes.  That means there are no past, future, perfective or imperfective participles of any sort.  (Though I'd imagine you could use attributed phrases for similar effect - syuve a fkol yalmom vs. yawnoma syuve eaten food, for example.)  There are also no second position infixes allowed with participles.  Pre-first position infixes can, of course, combine with participles.

smäpusona tute
Self-knowing person

Participles of auxiliary (si) verbs are constructed no differently than the verb is normally used - the participle infix goes into the verb part, and both parts are considered together.  In writing, the words are hyphenated to show the connection.  Notice the location of the attributive -a- affix in the following examples.

srung-susia tute
tute asrung-susi
Helping person

Reflexive causative
There are, then, only two pre-first position infixes, the causative and the reflexive.  Can they combine?  Yes, they can, in one form, <äp><eyk> is the reflexive causative, meaning cause oneself to do something.

po täpeykìyeverkeiup nìnäk
I am jazzed that he is apparently about to drink himself to death
(That is officially the most mutilated a verb can become, and was a group effort.  Color coding due to the extreme verbal mutilation.)

For a slightly easier example...

po kllkxäpeykem
He stands himself up

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

[Lance R. Casey]

Regarding si participles, did we get explicit confirmation that ‹awn› is also allowed, even though the construction from which you start is considered intransitive? That is, is the example "a clarified question" provided in the Outstanding Question #11b rendered as *tìpawm alaw-sawni?

[Prrton]

Regarding si participles, did we get explicit confirmation that ‹awn› is also allowed, even though the construction from which you start is considered intransitive? That is, is the example "a clarified question" provided in the Outstanding Question #11b rendered as *tìpawm alaw-sawni?

In juxtaposition to tute asrung-susi I wrote down tute asrung-sawni (a helped/assisted person), and I don't believe it was a problem. Did anyone hear him baulk at that?

[Ftiafpi]

Regarding si participles, did we get explicit confirmation that ‹awn› is also allowed, even though the construction from which you start is considered intransitive? That is, is the example "a clarified question" provided in the Outstanding Question #11b rendered as *tìpawm alaw-sawni?

In juxtaposition to tute asrung-susi I wrote down tute asrung-sawni (a helped/assisted person), and I don't believe it was a problem. Did anyone hear him baulk at that?

I heard no baulking and don't see any reason why one couldn't do that.

[wm.annis]

In juxtaposition to tute asrung-susi I wrote down tute asrung-sawni (a helped/assisted person), and I don't believe it was a problem. Did anyone hear him baulk at that?

Wrote down where?  Because I really hope that's a problem.  I would only expect a causative si-construction (X seyki) to be able to take passive participle form.

[Kemaweyan]

Mllte hu Tsm. Wm.Annis

I think it's possible to create passive participles only from transitive verbs, but as we know the verbs created with si are always instransitive

[Swoka Swizaw]

po täpeykìyeverkeiup nìnäk
I am jazzed that he is apparently about to drink himself to death

Dude, isn't that Hellish. Am I to assume that "oe" is already implied?

[wm.annis]

Dude, isn't that Hellish. Am I to assume that "oe" is already implied?

By the ‹ei› attitude infix.  The attitude infixes always refer to the attitude of the speaker.

[omängum fra'uti]

Mllte hu Tsm. Wm.Annis

I think it's possible to create passive participles only from transitive verbs, but as we know the verbs created with si are always instransitive

They are grammatically intransitive, but not necessarily semantically intransitive...  However as <awn> is a grammatical construct rather than a semantic one, that would seem to indicate it should follow the grammatical rules.  But tute asrung-sawni certainly makes more sense than something like *tute arawney which is wrong both grammatically AND semantically.

However I don't remember exactly what was said about passive si participles so hìtxoa, I can not actively participate in the recounting of the discussion.

I DID however remember another couple related comments though, that there are no si- gerunds.  Where you would use the gerund form normally, just drop the si and use the base word.  So the "gerund" of srung si is just srung.

Second, like with kem, and apologies that you have to rely on my faulty memory for this one as I asked this during a break so as far as I know I'm the only witness (Hopefully I'm not misremembering), you can use modifiers on si verbs where it makes sense.  So for example...

Wina uvan si
Play a quick game

[Prrton]

In juxtaposition to tute asrung-susi I wrote down tute asrung-sawni (a helped/assisted person), and I don't believe it was a problem. Did anyone hear him baulk at that?

Wrote down where?  Because I really hope that's a problem.  I would only expect a causative si-construction (X seyki) to be able to take passive participle form.

On the board.

[Prrton]

Mllte hu Tsm. Wm.Annis

I think it's possible to create passive participles only from transitive verbs, but as we know the verbs created with si are always instransitive

They are grammatically intransitive, but not necessarily semantically intransitive...  However as <awn> is a grammatical construct rather than a semantic one, that would seem to indicate it should follow the grammatical rules.  But tute asrung-sawni certainly makes more sense than something like *tute arawney which is wrong both grammatically AND semantically.

However I don't remember exactly what was said about passive si participles so hìtxoa, I can not actively participate in the recounting of the discussion.

I DID however remember another couple related comments though, that there are no si- gerunds.  Where you would use the gerund form normally, just drop the si and use the base word.  So the "gerund" of srung si is just srung.

Second, like with kem, and apologies that you have to rely on my faulty memory for this one as I asked this during a break so as far as I know I'm the only witness (Hopefully I'm not misremembering), you can use modifiers on si verbs where it makes sense.  So for example...

Wina uvan si
Play a quick game

also... tsakem rä'ä sivi.

That surprised me the first time I saw/heard it, but it makes sense.

[wm.annis]

I DID however remember another couple related comments though, that there are no si- gerunds.  Where you would use the gerund form normally, just drop the si and use the base word.  So the "gerund" of srung si is just srung.

Second, like with kem, and apologies that you have to rely on my faulty memory for this one as I asked this during a break so as far as I know I'm the only witness (Hopefully I'm not misremembering), you can use modifiers on si verbs where it makes sense.

Rutxe, ne Wiki awngeyä!

They are grammatically intransitive, but not necessarily semantically intransitive...  However as <awn> is a grammatical construct rather than a semantic one, that would seem to indicate it should follow the grammatical rules.  But tute asrung-sawni certainly makes more sense than something like *tute arawney which is wrong both grammatically AND semantically.

A year ago I would have agreed with you on this, but I'm increasingly coming to see transitivity is more a grammatical than a semantic matter.  The grammar would have to present some structural requirement for intransitives to take passive marking, which we don't really have in Na'vi as far as I can see.

Poor Paul.  He keeps answering our questions, but each answer raises more questions...

[Prrton]

I DID however remember another couple related comments though, that there are no si- gerunds.  Where you would use the gerund form normally, just drop the si and use the base word.  So the "gerund" of srung si is just srung.

Second, like with kem, and apologies that you have to rely on my faulty memory for this one as I asked this during a break so as far as I know I'm the only witness (Hopefully I'm not misremembering), you can use modifiers on si verbs where it makes sense.

Rutxe, ne Wiki awngeyä!

They are grammatically intransitive, but not necessarily semantically intransitive...  However as <awn> is a grammatical construct rather than a semantic one, that would seem to indicate it should follow the grammatical rules.  But tute asrung-sawni certainly makes more sense than something like *tute arawney which is wrong both grammatically AND semantically.

A year ago I would have agreed with you on this, but I'm increasingly coming to see transitivity is more a grammatical than a semantic matter.  The grammar would have to present some structural requirement for intransitives to take passive marking, which we don't really have in Na'vi as far as I can see.

Poor Paul.  He keeps answering our questions, but each answer raises more questions...

I overtly asked again this AM. Will let you know as soon as I get anything.

[omängum fra'uti]

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.

[Prrton]

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.

Precisely. I came here to write that and it was already slolu *'u apamrel-sawni *??

[kewnya txamew'itan]

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?).

[omängum fra'uti]

At the moment the only valid use of sno is the genitive case sneyä.

[Prrton]

At the moment the only valid use of sno is the genitive case sneyä.

Seconded.

[Swoka Swizaw]

Dude, isn't that Hellish. Am I to assume that "oe" is already implied?

By the ‹ei› attitude infix.  The attitude infixes always refer to the attitude of the speaker.

I think I figured that, but became confounded by the immensity of what I was seeing.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

At the moment the only valid use of sno is the genitive case sneyä.

So my idea re:transitivity in na'vi is potentially valid? If so, lam ayngaru sìltsan srak?