Use of Agentive case and Ambiguity

[Tirea Aean]

Kaltxì ma frapo. Several months ago, I stumbled across this thread started by Kemaweyan, which I translated and put here because I feel he raised a good point. Turns out he was right.

The use or non-use of the agentive -l in attributive clauses has a lot to say about the meaning. And when you can't use the agentive because of an intransitive modal verb, the ambiguity stays, and context has to make it clear.

Spoiler: email conversation with K.Pawl

So my mate Neytiri was teaching someone and came across a crazy ambiguity:

"I like this thing that I can see" vs. "I like that I can see"
"Oeru sunu fwa oe tsun tsive'a"

but which does it mean? It seems ambiguous.

Tsmukan Kemaweyan discovered a similar ambiguitiy in October:

"I like this thing that I understood" vs. "I like that I understood"
"Oeru sunu fwa oe tslolam."

In this case, he argued that using -l on oe would maybe break the ambiguity:

"Oeru sunu fwa oel tslolam" (I like the thing which I've understood)
"Oeru sunu fwa oe tslolam" (I like that I've understood)

What do you think? IS it possible to use the "Oel Teylut New Yivom" exception in order to use this in the first case?:

"Oeru sunu fwa oel tsun tsive'a" (I like this thing that I can see")

I've said that using -l with tsun feels wrong in this case and in any case except the exception outlined in the Na'viteri post.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as always.

Eywa Ngahu

You're right to point out that "Sunu oeru fwa oe tsun tsive'a" is ambiguous.

(As Kemaweyan pointed out, "Sunu oeru fwa oe tsive'a" is NOT ambiguous: it can only mean "I like (the fact) that I see." If you want to say, "I like the thing I see" or "I like what I see," it has to be "Sunu oeru fwa oel tse'a.")

I think that in most cases, context will determine which of the meanings is appropriate. But I agree that there has to be a way to disambiguate when there's the danger of miscommunication.

Like you, I don't like using -l with tsun, so that's not an option for disambiguating the sentence.

I don't want to come up with an answer that i haven't considered carefully, so let me take a bit more time on this, and as soon as I have something I'm happy with, I'll get back to you, OK?

Just checking up on the status of the ambiguity thing. Have you had any free time to think about it?

Personally, I was thinking that some options might be:

a) make a rule where in this instance, fwa and fì'u a are slightly different:

Oeru sunu fwa oe tsun tsive'a
(I like the fact that I can see)

Oeru sunu fì'u a oe tsun tsive'a
(I like this thing that I can see)

b) include some patient, like tsat:

Oeru sunu fwa oe tsun tsive'a
(I like the fact that I can see)

Oeru sunu fwa oe tsun tsive'a tsat
(I like this thing which I can see it)

But of course, there is still possible ambiguity in that last one:
I like this thing which I can see it / I like the fact that I can see that thing.

This really is a crazy ambiguity. Maybe this has to be one of those unsolvable ambiguities where context is the solution. Ambiguous sentences as you have said must exist if a language is to feel natural. All natural languages have some ambiguity.

What do you think?

[...]I really don't think it's a serious problem. As you've said, ambiguity is a fact of life in all natural languages. Actually, it's sometimes a plus, in that it allows for multiple layers of meaning and also artistry in language--for example, puns and "double entendres."[...]

Just one quick thing for now. When I was thinking about this, something in English dawned on me. I'll leave it to you to ponder.  :-)

Consider this sentence:

The fact that she told me is hard to accept.

See the connection?

<g>

P.

S1: she tells me a fact. To accept it is difficult.
S2: She tells me something. This situation is difficult to accept.

YES!!!

To elaborate a bit on the interpretations:

1. I never thought she'd tell me. But she did. She told me. That's hard for me to accept.

2. She told me a fact. That fact is hard for me to accept.

So would you agree that this is very similar to the Na'vi ambiguity?

When I realized that, i said to myself, "If English isn't seriously impaired by such an ambiguity, Na'vi shouldn't be either."

One thing is surprising, though: The English sentence is ambiguous in writing, but in speaking we make a distinction. (See if this feels right to you.)

1. The fact that she TOLD ME is hard to accept.

2. The FACT that she told me is hard to accept.

Interesting, huh?

[Seze Mune]

Very interesting discussion.  I think it leaves me in ambiguity.

Maybe we need a word for ambiguous or ambiguity.  We already have one for UNambiguously: nìpxi

[Ftiafpi]

Kaltxì ma frapo. Several months ago, I stumbled across this thread started by Kemaweyan, which I translated and put here because I feel he raised a good point. Turns out he was right.

The use or non-use of the agentive -l in attributive clauses has a lot to say about the meaning. And when you can't use the agentive because of an intransitive modal verb, the ambiguity stays, and context has to make it clear.

Spoiler: email conversation with K.Pawl

So my mate Neytiri was teaching someone and came across a crazy ambiguity:

"I like this thing that I can see" vs. "I like that I can see"
"Oeru sunu fwa oe tsun tsive'a"

but which does it mean? It seems ambiguous.

Tsmukan Kemaweyan discovered a similar ambiguitiy in October:

"I like this thing that I understood" vs. "I like that I understood"
"Oeru sunu fwa oe tslolam."

In this case, he argued that using -l on oe would maybe break the ambiguity:

"Oeru sunu fwa oel tslolam" (I like the thing which I've understood)
"Oeru sunu fwa oe tslolam" (I like that I've understood)

What do you think? IS it possible to use the "Oel Teylut New Yivom" exception in order to use this in the first case?:

"Oeru sunu fwa oel tsun tsive'a" (I like this thing that I can see")

I've said that using -l with tsun feels wrong in this case and in any case except the exception outlined in the Na'viteri post.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as always.

Eywa Ngahu

You're right to point out that "Sunu oeru fwa oe tsun tsive'a" is ambiguous.

(As Kemaweyan pointed out, "Sunu oeru fwa oe tsive'a" is NOT ambiguous: it can only mean "I like (the fact) that I see." If you want to say, "I like the thing I see" or "I like what I see," it has to be "Sunu oeru fwa oel tse'a.")

I think that in most cases, context will determine which of the meanings is appropriate. But I agree that there has to be a way to disambiguate when there's the danger of miscommunication.

Like you, I don't like using -l with tsun, so that's not an option for disambiguating the sentence.

I don't want to come up with an answer that i haven't considered carefully, so let me take a bit more time on this, and as soon as I have something I'm happy with, I'll get back to you, OK?

Just checking up on the status of the ambiguity thing. Have you had any free time to think about it?

Personally, I was thinking that some options might be:

a) make a rule where in this instance, fwa and fì'u a are slightly different:

Oeru sunu fwa oe tsun tsive'a
(I like the fact that I can see)

Oeru sunu fì'u a oe tsun tsive'a
(I like this thing that I can see)

b) include some patient, like tsat:

Oeru sunu fwa oe tsun tsive'a
(I like the fact that I can see)

Oeru sunu fwa oe tsun tsive'a tsat
(I like this thing which I can see it)

But of course, there is still possible ambiguity in that last one:
I like this thing which I can see it / I like the fact that I can see that thing.

This really is a crazy ambiguity. Maybe this has to be one of those unsolvable ambiguities where context is the solution. Ambiguous sentences as you have said must exist if a language is to feel natural. All natural languages have some ambiguity.

What do you think?

[...]I really don't think it's a serious problem. As you've said, ambiguity is a fact of life in all natural languages. Actually, it's sometimes a plus, in that it allows for multiple layers of meaning and also artistry in language--for example, puns and "double entendres."[...]

Just one quick thing for now. When I was thinking about this, something in English dawned on me. I'll leave it to you to ponder.  :-)

Consider this sentence:

The fact that she told me is hard to accept.

See the connection?

<g>

P.

S1: she tells me a fact. To accept it is difficult.
S2: She tells me something. This situation is difficult to accept.

YES!!!

To elaborate a bit on the interpretations:

1. I never thought she'd tell me. But she did. She told me. That's hard for me to accept.

2. She told me a fact. That fact is hard for me to accept.

So would you agree that this is very similar to the Na'vi ambiguity?

When I realized that, i said to myself, "If English isn't seriously impaired by such an ambiguity, Na'vi shouldn't be either."

One thing is surprising, though: The English sentence is ambiguous in writing, but in speaking we make a distinction. (See if this feels right to you.)

1. The fact that she TOLD ME is hard to accept.

2. The FACT that she told me is hard to accept.

Interesting, huh?

Fascinating. I'm actually kind of glad we have little ambiguities like this. It makes the language feel more "real" to me. Plus, in this case, I think any rule that is made might actually make the language more difficult. This way any new learners will automatically be right, they just have to be aware about the potential for ambiguity.