Mipa Aylì'u Teri Tusäftxua Fìlì'fya!

Started by Taronyu, April 03, 2010, 10:59:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: roger on April 03, 2010, 03:13:56 PM
   Ke fparmìl oel futa lu tute a tsun nì-Na'vi set fìfya pivlltxe!
   "I didn't think that there was anyone who could speak Na'vi like this!"

   Ke lu kawtu a nulnivew oe pohu tireapivängkxo äo Utral Aymokriyä.
   "There's nobody I'd rather commune with under the Tree of Voices"

   Eo ayoeng lu txana tìkawng.
   A great evil is upon us.

Now, all of these are BE in the sense of "there is, there are", which is also how 'have' works. It's possible that when we want to be more specific than just "there is", we should use 'tok', but what's the diff tween tìkawg lu ayoengeo and oe lu numcegmì ?
Errr... None of those are describing location directly.  The first strikes me as VERy idiomatic to English saying "There is".  What it's saying is that "I didn't think that a person existed who could speak Na'vi like this", talking about existence not location.  The second is purely being used descriptively as where something would occur, not really talking about the location of something directly.  It's also not being at something, but being under something.  (I wonder how you would say "He is under the tree" though...  Would be pe "Po äo utral lu" or "Po äo utral tok"...)  The last is again not location.  We describe it in terms of location in English (It's here / it's on us) but that's purely an analogy to something more conceptual.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Plumps

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on April 03, 2010, 03:30:43 PM
Let me get my red marker... :D

Quote from: Taronyu on April 03, 2010, 10:59:37 AM
Tse, latrr a oel fpäpìl [...] Fìkem skxakep tìprrte' layu! Ha, na krr a oe lu numtsengmì, tsere'a ke ftära pa'or sì ke skiena pa'or, oe sngä'i. [...]
...
Ayngaru tìprrte livu talun faylì'u! :)

latrr => I think, Taronyu meant "the other day" ;)
pa'or => dative of pa'o side ?

omängum fra'uti

Wow, I missed pa'o in my compiling a list of words, don't know how that happened.  Using la- as a general prefix isn't really attested at this point.  The "correct" way would be "trr alahe", but then again it's a common enough expression that it wouldn't be surprising for a shortened form to appear even if la- isn't a general prefix.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Plumps

Apart from "the other day" being an idiomatic expression, if I'm not mistaken. In German it's "letztens" or "neulich" - "the other day" in German literally means "(I mean) not this day but the other day (when we did somthing)"

But I agree with you that lahe could be shortened like in aylaru < aylaheru

roger

#24
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on April 03, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: roger on April 03, 2010, 03:13:56 PM
   Ke fparmìl oel futa lu tute a tsun nì-Na'vi set fìfya pivlltxe!
   "I didn't think that there was anyone who could speak Na'vi like this!"

   Ke lu kawtu a nulnivew oe pohu tireapivängkxo äo Utral Aymokriyä.
   "There's nobody I'd rather commune with under the Tree of Voices"

   Eo ayoeng lu txana tìkawng.
   A great evil is upon us.

Now, all of these are BE in the sense of "there is, there are", which is also how 'have' works. It's possible that when we want to be more specific than just "there is", we should use 'tok', but what's the diff tween tìkawg lu ayoengeo and oe lu numcegmì ?
Errr... None of those are describing location directly.  The first strikes me as VERy idiomatic to English saying "There is".  What it's saying is that "I didn't think that a person existed who could speak Na'vi like this", talking about existence not location.  The second is purely being used descriptively as where something would occur, not really talking about the location of something directly.  It's also not being at something, but being under something.  (I wonder how you would say "He is under the tree" though...  Would be pe "Po äo utral lu" or "Po äo utral tok"...)  The last is again not location.  We describe it in terms of location in English (It's here / it's on us) but that's purely an analogy to something more conceptual.

So tìkawg lu eo ayoeng would be "there is an evil before us" and tute lu mì numceg "there is a person in the school" -- what is the difference exactly?

But you may be right: 'lu' is only generic place (there is an evil before us) whereas 'tok' might be required for specific location (my car is in the shop). Hard to say.

omängum fra'uti

See my comment about "He is under the tree".  In cases where it's not just a simple locative "at", it is unclear if there is a difference between lu and tok.  (And even when it is "at", what about "lu ro X rather than tok?)  Though I'd think "lu" would be more in the sense of "Lu sanhì mì taw" - stars exist in the sky...  The existance just is there, it's not like the stars would be anywhere else in that case.  Whereas a person who climbed a tree would be "Tute mì utral tok" - that is where their location right now, not their place of existance.  But maybe that's splitting hairs a bit too fine.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Plumps

Nonsense about tìmun'i nikreyä ;)

This is exactly what needs to be cleared. Maybe this is one more question for the Combining Our Efford II list.
Because in your last example that would mean that tok gives up its transitivity...

Prrton

#27
Quote from: roger on April 03, 2010, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on April 03, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: roger on April 03, 2010, 03:13:56 PM
   Ke fparmìl oel futa lu tute a tsun nì-Na'vi set fìfya pivlltxe!
   "I didn't think that there was anyone who could speak Na'vi like this!"

   Ke lu kawtu a nulnivew oe pohu tireapivängkxo äo Utral Aymokriyä.
   "There's nobody I'd rather commune with under the Tree of Voices"

   Eo ayoeng lu txana tìkawng.
   A great evil is upon us.

Now, all of these are BE in the sense of "there is, there are", which is also how 'have' works. It's possible that when we want to be more specific than just "there is", we should use 'tok', but what's the diff tween tìkawg lu ayoengeo and oe lu numcegmì ?
Errr... None of those are describing location directly.  The first strikes me as VERy idiomatic to English saying "There is".  What it's saying is that "I didn't think that a person existed who could speak Na'vi like this", talking about existence not location.  The second is purely being used descriptively as where something would occur, not really talking about the location of something directly.  It's also not being at something, but being under something.  (I wonder how you would say "He is under the tree" though...  Would be pe "Po äo utral lu" or "Po äo utral tok"...)  The last is again not location.  We describe it in terms of location in English (It's here / it's on us) but that's purely an analogy to something more conceptual.

So tìkawg lu eo ayoeng would be "there is an evil before us" and tute lu mì numceg "there is a person in the school" -- what is the difference exactly?

But you may be right: 'lu' is only generic place (there is an evil before us) whereas 'tok' might be required for specific location (my car is in the shop). Hard to say.

OK. I feel compelled to throw in my two cents.

I think I agree MORE with what tsmuk omängum fra'uti is saying. And more or less with roger's last musing...

I believe and (try to) use LU and TOK per the following:

LU covers the English semantic range for there is/are and to be (a noun or an adjective)
TOK covers the English semantic range for to be located at/in/on a place taking up space.

LU covers the Spanish semantic range for HAY and SER
TOK covers the Spanish semantic range for ESTAR

LU covers the Mandarin semantic range for 要 (you) and 是 (shi) (basically the same as Spanish)
TOK cover the Mandarin semantic range for 在 (zai) (basically the same as Spanish)

LU covers the Thai semantic range for MII and BPEN (basically the same as Spanish and Mandarin)
TOK covers the Thai semantic range for YUU (basically the same as Spanish)

I hope this won't hurt sales, but...

When the "oe lu hu skxawng" shirt first appeared (or I should say when I saw it advertised, maybe a day later) I dashed off a mail to Seabass pointing out that TO ME it reads "I am (in a serious (likely mated pair) relationship) with the adjacent moron." I suggested that if the point were to stand by a buddy in a bar and laugh about it, the text would more SAFELY read "oe tok hu skxawng" (meaning "I happen to be here ((now) physically present and taking up space (hanging out on a man date)) with the adjacent moron."

Apparently, it had already "gone to press."

Anyway. This is how I see it:

Oeru LU eylan apxay. LU suteo a TOK mì Yu.E.Sey ulte LU 'ewana aynumeyu, ulte kop (LU) suteo alahe a TOK mì frakllpxìltu kifkeyka ulte ke LU 'ewan nìwotx.

THERE ARE many friends to me (= I have many friends). THERE ARE some who ARE in the USA and ARE young students, and (THERE ARE) also some others who ARE in all other territories across the globe who ARE not young at all.

I think that in general (statistically) speaking TOK plays a less vital role than LU in the language. I do think that it is for PEOPLE/THINGS that are physically taking up space at a stated location [optionally: (for a limited/specific scope of time)].

I feel we'll need LOTS of negative examples (Rä'ä tsat txula nìfìfya a sìkenong) from K. Pawl to grasp this completely (and there could be a rather big gray area) unlike Spanish in which things are pretty clearly right and wrong when it comes to SER vs. ESTAR.

PS: in the example above the VERB in the English ends up being artificially over-repeated to show the relationship to the Na'vi, but cause in Na'vi it gets stated over and over again because it changes back and forth from LU to TOK to LU again...

roger

#28
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on April 03, 2010, 04:43:51 PM
See my comment about "He is under the tree".  In cases where it's not just a simple locative "at", it is unclear if there is a difference between lu and tok.  (And even when it is "at", what about "lu ro X rather than tok?)  Though I'd think "lu" would be more in the sense of "Lu sanhì mì taw" - stars exist in the sky...  The existance just is there, it's not like the stars would be anywhere else in that case.  Whereas a person who climbed a tree would be "Tute mì utral tok" - that is where their location right now, not their place of existance.  But maybe that's splitting hairs a bit too fine.

That seems reasonable, but we don't have an example of "is under the tree", only "commune under the tree". As just noted, you can't have tok äo utral, but only tok utralit. If you wanted "under the tree" with tok, I expect it would have to be s.t. like ?tok äopat utralä or tok tseget a äo utral.

Prrton

Quote from: roger on April 03, 2010, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: omängum fra'uti on April 03, 2010, 04:43:51 PM
See my comment about "He is under the tree".  In cases where it's not just a simple locative "at", it is unclear if there is a difference between lu and tok.  (And even when it is "at", what about "lu ro X rather than tok?)  Though I'd think "lu" would be more in the sense of "Lu sanhì mì taw" - stars exist in the sky...  The existance just is there, it's not like the stars would be anywhere else in that case.  Whereas a person who climbed a tree would be "Tute mì utral tok" - that is where their location right now, not their place of existance.  But maybe that's splitting hairs a bit too fine.

That seems reasonable, but we don't have an example of "is under the tree", only "commune under the tree". As just noted, you can't have tok äo utral, but only tok utralit. If you wanted "under the tree" with tok, I expect it would have to be s.t. like ?tok äopat utralä.

Where did ERG/ACC come from for TOK? Is that canonical?

Sorry if I missed something.

wm.annis

Quote from: Prrton on April 03, 2010, 05:00:29 PMWhere ERG/ACC come from for TOK? Is that canonical?

Yes, tok is transitive, so must use erg/acc.

omängum fra'uti

It's official, I don't think any of us are completely up on all the latest Na'vi.  The other day William asked a question that was answered in the corpus, I missed a word (Despite having replied to the post where the word was presented) and now Prrton missed the transitivity of tok.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

roger

If 'lu' cannot function as to be in a place, then we should ask how to say "[noun] is [prep] [location]". Do we need a relative clause for that?

Plumps

That's what I suggested a few posts above ;)

omängum fra'uti

I thought about "Tutel tok tsenget a mì utral" which, besides being a bit clumsy, would really be a short form of "Tutel tok tsenget a lu mì utral" - which then uses "lu" to avoid using "lu".  But yes, definitely a question to ask.  Probably rather high priority as well considering how common of a thing it is to say that you are near/in/under/on/etc a place.

But if "lu" + adp can be used, then why have "tok" at all if you could just say "lu ro"?
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Taronyu

@Tigermind: I mean probable: you're right. I also assume that mowan and vä' are opposites - I think that vä' would hold the english definition "noisome". It is 'änsyem, not 'ängsyem.

@omängum fra'uti - thanks for the red marker, I really appreciate it. I fixed some of the things, notably la-, which I like, but people don't want to stand behind, yet, jsut as fay+, I think. I didn't change lu + adp., because I didn't mean physical existence, but rather the time when I was enrolled, at which I didn't have to actually be in the school. I think that this works fine. I fixed some of the other errors - I hadn't realised latem was intransitive. You're right, none of us are 100%. I don't think I'm as bad as you think I am with grammar, though. I'm just a bit more liberal. ;).

:) I like these words.

Prrton

Quote from: wm.annis on April 03, 2010, 05:02:57 PM
Quote from: Prrton on April 03, 2010, 05:00:29 PMWhere ERG/ACC come from for TOK? Is that canonical?

Yes, tok is transitive, so must use erg/acc.

THANK YOU!

I actually am SHOCKED that I missed it, but seeing the timeframe of when it came in part of the mystery is solved. When I "came back" from work, I just didn't look far enough back in the updates.

And we DO have "back". TXAL. Cool.

So I'm assuming then that we have to find something to -t and then hang stuff around that, and things will be VERY gray in terms of LU vs. TOK compared to most of the other semantic precedents that >>> I <<< know. BUT, that's what makes it fun!  ;D