The causative infix

[omängum fra'uti]

I had a feeling that would be the case in the copulative lu...  I couldn't think of an example that actually made sense.  Even for other uses, the best I could come up with is "cause to have" - but that is conceptually the same as other verbs such as give.

But I was hoping you would have some brilliant answer for slu drawing on some obscure dead language construct, because that seems more useful to be used causatively.  I guess we need to wait for Nawma Karyu to give us more information.

[Skyinou]

 Oe tamok mì na'ring I was in the forest.
 Pol teykamok oeti mì na'ring She caused me to be in the forest.

I can't understand why it is "oeti" and not "oeru". "oeti" sound so word-to-word translated from english  
It should be dative, because it's caused to you to do the action. She doesn't "caused you", and she doesn't "hunt you" either. It is then not an Accusative for any of the two way of seeing it.
(I hope I'm clear enough, I'm not sure of my english to explain such a difficult matter.)

[wm.annis]

It should be dative, because it's caused to you to do the action.

Not here.  When an intransitive verb becomes causative, the causee is in the accusative.  When a transitive verb becomes causative, the causee is in the dative.

For example, sngä'i begin is intransitive.  When it takes the causative it becomes transitive with the causee in the accusative, Oel sngeykolä'i tìkangkemit "I began the work" (a Frommerian example).

[Skyinou]

Thanks ma wm.annis,
I don't doubt that your sources are good, but that doesn't explain it. For now I'll stay with: "Frommer said so, so it is"
And "sngä'i" being intransitive... well, the same, ok, if you say so  
I don't like "because it is so" rules, but of course there should be some to have a complete language.
oe taron / oel taron yerìkit
ngal teykaron oeti / ngal teykaron oeru yerìkit

And, what about "I made him speak to you"?
"oel peyklltxe poru nga??"?
Irayo

[Keylstxatsmen]

Thanks ma wm.annis,
I don't doubt that your sources are good, but that doesn't explain it. For now I'll stay with: "Frommer said so, so it is"
And "sngä'i" being intransitive... well, the same, ok, if you say so  
I don't like "because it is so" rules, but of course there should be some to have a complete language.
oe taron / oel taron yerìkit
ngal teykaron oeti / ngal teykaron oeru yerìkit

And, what about "I made him speak to you"?
"oel peyklltxe poru nga??"?
Irayo

"Speak with you" (ngahu) would probably solve the problem in this case, but you bring up an interesting point. 

How about "I made him give that to you"?  We have seen two datives in the same sentence before though (lu oeru aylì'u frapor), so there must be some positioning rules or things would just have to make sense when in context.  Oel tsat teykìng poru ngar? or maybe we make things more clear with something in the topic, but every time I try things just seem to get more confusing.

As for some words being transitive/intransitive while others being only one or the other, I think all languages have things that you just need to memorize with no real patterns.  Na'vi seems pretty tame in that regard especially when compared to English.

-Keyl

[Alìm Tsamsiyu]

Still, I don't like the wide open nature of Wikipedia...

First, it's now Wikibooks, not Wikipedia.  All the content that used to be on Wikipedia moved to Wikibooks about two weeks ago.

Second, it's not the wide-open nature that should hinder your trust.  The forum is no less wide-open - anyone can post anything.

Third, your trust should be based on the degree to which material you encounter (whether on Wikipedia, Wikibooks, the forum, or your own email inbox) is supported by references to reliable sources.  The author behind most of the Wikibooks content (and the Wikipedia content before it) is very good at conducting analysis but is stunningly poor at providing references or explaining his analysis.  I generally assume anything he's written is correct, but I'm never comfortable until I see others making the same conclusions from corpus analysis, or until I see the emails from Frommer that he's relying on being posted.

  - Eri

Sran... it's point #3 there that I dislike the most.  I like sources.

Point #2 is a bit less applicable as, here, any posted information is subject to immediate review and correction, whereas in any Wiki (be it books/pedia) the person who posted the change may remain anonymous, and I somewhat doubt there are as many eyes watching the edits page as there are watching the forums here.  Errors there seem much more likely to go unnoticed (at least, for a longer time than here).

-------

Anyway, on topic.

One thing I'm wondering is if this causative infix is going to crop up a lot in somewhat common speech... also leads me to wonder if there were some places in the movie where the causative infix should have been used but was skipped probably because the concept wasn't fully developed yet.  Can't think of anything particularly off the top of my head, but I figured 2+ heads are better than one, and maybe someone else can think of one.  Just some food for thought.

[ilovenicknames]

i really want to learn na'vi...but it's kinda pretty hard..
because on this website are no sentences or so

[wm.annis]

One thing I'm wondering is if this causative infix is going to crop up a lot in somewhat common speech... also leads me to wonder if there were some places in the movie where the causative infix should have been used but was skipped probably because the concept wasn't fully developed yet. 

The causative is never required.  Now, it's a convenient thing for a constructed language to have, because it lets you derive vocabulary from existing words, and reduces your word creation requirements, but a language isn't obligated to create words that way.  So you might have a completely separate word where you'd think a causative of another word would work.  We have one example I can think of right away in Na'vi, rikx (move, intransitive) and 'ärìp (move, transitive).  I'll ask Frommer if reykikx has any use eventually. 

[roger]

There's also 'die' and 'kill'. Lots of languages have suppletive sets: person and people in English, for example.

[Plumps]

Hmm, I encountered a little translation problem and hope somebody can help me. It's the use of the <eyk> together with a modal verb.

So, if I wanted to say: "You can change the text"
latem would have to get the <eyk> infix because in this context it's transitive.
What happens with the other components? I'm still confused about which takes the ergative, accusative and (if required) dative markers...
Am I assuming that
Ngal tsun l<eyk><iv>atem *the text*-it would be correct?

Thanks for any help.

[Lance R. Casey]

Hmm, I encountered a little translation problem and hope somebody can help me. It's the use of the <eyk> together with a modal verb.

So, if I wanted to say: "You can change the text"
latem would have to get the <eyk> infix because in this context it's transitive.
What happens with the other components? I'm still confused about which takes the ergative, accusative and (if required) dative markers...
Am I assuming that
Ngal tsun l<eyk><iv>atem *the text*-it would be correct?

Thanks for any help.

If the original verb (latem) is intransitive, the original subject ("the text") becomes the direct object. Dative comes into play when you start with a transitive verb.
Tsun is also intransitive, and the subject of the secondary verb is understood to be the same (regardless of transitivity):

Nga tsun leykivatem "the text"(i)t

[Keylstxatsmen]

Hmm, I encountered a little translation problem and hope somebody can help me. It's the use of the <eyk> together with a modal verb.

So, if I wanted to say: "You can change the text"
latem would have to get the <eyk> infix because in this context it's transitive.
What happens with the other components? I'm still confused about which takes the ergative, accusative and (if required) dative markers...
Am I assuming that
Ngal tsun l<eyk><iv>atem *the text*-it would be correct?

Thanks for any help.

"The text" should be in ACC, nga does not need the ERG as tsun is intransitive while the sub. clause's ngal can be left out, I believe.

I think there are basically two ways of using -eyk- and they seem to follow the same formula:

1. Intransitive verbs, like latem and sngä'i, become transitive with the causative infix, i.e. Oel sneykä'a tìkangkemit "I begin the work."  The thing being affected takes the ACC, the agent who caused it is in the ERG.

2. Transitive verbs, like taron, one is causing the action to happen but not doing it oneself, i.e. Eytukanìl Neytirir yerikit teykolaron. "Eytukan made Neytiri hunt a hexaped."  The agent who caused the action takes the ERG, the noun acted on by the verb takes ACC as in the non-causitive sentence, and the person caused to do the verb is in the DAT.

[THEORIZING] I don't think the specific entity that performed the action need be outright stated.  Eytukanìl tspeykolang pot.  "Eytukan had him killed." It doesn't seem important to say "by someone", and it follows the same structure as "I had that changed".  I could be wrong though.

But how do you say "I made him change that"?  maybe: Oel poru leykolatam tsat. or also (I am more sure about this one): Oel fa po leykolatam tsat. [/THEORIZING]

-Keyl

[Plumps]

Oeru teya si fwa sì'eyng fìtxan win lu Irayo