Author Topic: Na'vi in a Nutshell  (Read 51725 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 'Oma Tirea

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
  • Karma: 50
  • Na'vi... sleru... rusti...
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #200 on: December 06, 2010, 04:26:43 am »
Seems I'm lacking some clarification here...

Quote
This reminds me: you might need to double-check and remove anything in the document that is ambiguous.

I guarantee I've looked at NiaN more than any other person on the planet.  What I have there I believe to be clear, otherwise I would change it.  That's why I encourage people to respond here about any concerns, as what is clear to me might not necessarily be clear to you.  The community's responses help me update and fine tune the document. 

Here are the ambiguities I'm referring to:

Quote from: NiaN LN 1.1
ll and rr can only come at the end of a syllable beginning with a
single consonant....and something like trrm or tspll could not be words.
Quote from: NiaN Section 2.1
Moe lu meharyu We are teachers OR
Moe lu karyu We are teachers BUT NOT
Moe lu (ay)haryu

Rutxe catch me out if I have been misunderstanding what you said teri NiaN Section 2.1, ma Carborundum.

[img]http://swokaikran.skxawng.lu/sigbar/nwotd.php?p=2b[/img]

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

Srake serar le'Ìnglìsìa lì'fyayä aylì'ut?  Nari si älofoniru rutxe!!

Offline Carborundum

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
  • Karma: 24
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #201 on: December 06, 2010, 09:11:51 am »
Quote
Not to bash on NeotrekkerZ, but they don't really have the authority to create rules like that.
Quote
Doesn't "moe lu karyu" come from Karyu Pawl?
I'm not sure who "they" are, but that quote is either from K. Pawl or a direct substitution of nouns/pronouns using his grammar rule.  I have never created a grammar rule; my intention is to provide the most complete AND official guide to Na'vi grammar as is possible.  If there is ever a consensus that deems something I wrote in the guide to be false (it has happened due to misinterpretations on my part in the past) I change the guide, plain and simple.
"They" is a disputed singular neutral third person pronoun which I personally prefer over "s/he". In other words, "they" refers to you.

I can't find a reference for this information:
Quote from: NiaN Section 2.1
Moe lu meharyu We are teachers OR
Moe lu karyu We are teachers BUT NOT
Moe lu (ay)haryu
That doesn't mean there isn't one, of course. I'd be grateful if you could point me in the right direction.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 09:14:28 am by Carborundum »
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Offline NeotrekkerZ

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Karma: 40
  • Nume ralit lì'fyayä ulte nga tayìran Eywahu.
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #202 on: December 08, 2010, 07:22:42 pm »
Quote
Quote from: NiaN LN 1.1
ll and rr can only come at the end of a syllable beginning with a
single consonant....and something like trrm or tspll could not be words.

OK, I'm not sure which version you have, but your analysis is right.  I believe I updated LN1.1 to reflect this in version 2.5.  If not it will be updated in version 2.6 which will be released before xmas.

Quote
I can't find a reference for this information:
Quote from: NiaN Section 2.1
Moe lu meharyu We are teachers OR
Moe lu karyu We are teachers BUT NOT
Moe lu (ay)haryu

This is extremely odd.  I swear I recall seeing this (I even think I copy pasted it because it was such a clear example), but now I too cannot seem to find it.  I'm going to keep looking, but it's crunch time for me right now with my classes, so please give me some time.  Regardless, when I find (or don't find) the answer, I will inform you here.
Rìk oe lu hufwemì, nìn fya’ot a oe tswayon!

Offline 'Oma Tirea

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
  • Karma: 50
  • Na'vi... sleru... rusti...
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #203 on: December 09, 2010, 08:54:43 pm »
Quote
Quote from: NiaN LN 1.1
ll and rr can only come at the end of a syllable beginning with a
single consonant....and something like trrm or tspll could not be words.

OK, I'm not sure which version you have, but your analysis is right.  I believe I updated LN1.1 to reflect this in version 2.5.  If not it will be updated in version 2.6 which will be released before xmas.

Oddly enough, it didn't get updated in version 2.5 :P

[img]http://swokaikran.skxawng.lu/sigbar/nwotd.php?p=2b[/img]

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

Srake serar le'Ìnglìsìa lì'fyayä aylì'ut?  Nari si älofoniru rutxe!!

Offline eejmensenikbenhet

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1021
  • nl Netherlands
  • Karma: 15
    • Ketuwong aNeyn
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #204 on: December 16, 2010, 09:04:35 am »
Kaltxì!
I'm busy translating "Na'vi in a Nutshell" to Dutch. But I didn't quite understand this part:
Quote
Moe lu meharyuWe are teachers OR
Moe lu karyuWe are teachers BUT NOT
Moe lu (ay)haryu

Why is Moe lu karyu correct?
Hmm now I see this had been asked a lot of times, does anyone have foun the anwer yet?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2010, 09:08:10 am by eejmensenikbenhet »

Offline Ftxavanga Txe′lan

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1730
  • Karma: 32
    • My tumblr :)
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #205 on: December 16, 2010, 09:14:37 am »
Kaltxì!
I'm busy translating "Na'vi in a Nutshell" to Dutch. But I didn't quite understand this part:
Quote
Moe lu meharyuWe are teachers OR
Moe lu karyuWe are teachers BUT NOT
Moe lu (ay)haryu

Why is Moe lu karyu correct?
Hmm now I see this had been asked a lot of times, does anyone have foun the anwer yet?

Yeah, we've already had a little discussion about that in the beginner forum, but I think no one is really sure what the true explanation is! I'm also wondering :o

Offline eejmensenikbenhet

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1021
  • nl Netherlands
  • Karma: 15
    • Ketuwong aNeyn
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #206 on: December 16, 2010, 09:18:00 am »
Kaltxì!
I'm busy translating "Na'vi in a Nutshell" to Dutch. But I didn't quite understand this part:
Quote
Moe lu meharyuWe are teachers OR
Moe lu karyuWe are teachers BUT NOT
Moe lu (ay)haryu

Why is Moe lu karyu correct?
Hmm now I see this had been asked a lot of times, does anyone have foun the anwer yet?

Yeah, we've already had a little discussion about that in the beginner forum, but I think no one is really sure what the true explanation is! I'm also wondering :o
I think I'll leave it that way, and just translate it anyway.
When it gets updated I'll change it.

Offline Plumps

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 6139
  • Karma: 221
  • ’Ivong Na’vi
    • Aylì'uä Ramunong (Pìlok)
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #207 on: December 16, 2010, 10:25:31 am »
I have to admit, I left out *moe lu karyu in the German version, because I couldn’t find evidence for it to be correct. Don’t know how thoroughly you’ll translate but there will be instances now and again where you just have to take a step back or sideways for it to work in your target language. I listed all the changes I’ve made at the end of the translated document.

Offline eejmensenikbenhet

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1021
  • nl Netherlands
  • Karma: 15
    • Ketuwong aNeyn
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #208 on: December 16, 2010, 10:38:10 am »
I have to admit, I left out *moe lu karyu in the German version, because I couldn’t find evidence for it to be correct. Don’t know how thoroughly you’ll translate but there will be instances now and again where you just have to take a step back or sideways for it to work in your target language. I listed all the changes I’ve made at the end of the translated document.
Well that's smart, you gave me an idea ;)

I was thinking: why not change the example?

We (the two of us, but not you) are warriors.
Moe lu mesamsiyu.We are warriors.OR
Moe lu samsiyu.We are warriors.BUT NOT
Moe lu aysamsiyu.

With aysamsiyu you'll change the quantity of "we". And with samsiyu you just drop the prefix because there is lenition.


Offline Carborundum

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
  • Karma: 24
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #209 on: December 16, 2010, 10:42:48 am »
I have to admit, I left out *moe lu karyu in the German version, because I couldn’t find evidence for it to be correct. Don’t know how thoroughly you’ll translate but there will be instances now and again where you just have to take a step back or sideways for it to work in your target language. I listed all the changes I’ve made at the end of the translated document.
Well that's smart, you gave me an idea ;)

I was thinking: why not change the example?

We (the two of us, but not you) are warriors.
Moe lu mesamsiyu.We are warriors.OR
Moe lu samsiyu.We are warriors.BUT NOT
Moe lu aysamsiyu.

With aysamsiyu you'll change the quantity of "we". And with samsiyu you just drop the prefix because there is lenition.
That's not correct. Me+ and pxe+ never drop. Samsiyu = aysamsiyu.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Offline Plumps

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 6139
  • Karma: 221
  • ’Ivong Na’vi
    • Aylì'uä Ramunong (Pìlok)
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #210 on: December 16, 2010, 10:43:18 am »
I was thinking: why not change the example?

We (the two of us, but not you) are warriors.
Moe lu mesamsiyu.We are warriors.OR
Moe lu samsiyu.We are warriors.BUT NOT
Moe lu aysamsiyu.

With aysamsiyu you'll change the quantity of "we". And with samsiyu you just drop the prefix because there is lenition.

That doesn’t change the problem of moe (being two) vs. (ay)samsiyu/(ay)haryu (being more than 3) ;) which is what I think is not right with that sentence… But I could be wrong.

Offline Ataeghane

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: 32
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #211 on: December 16, 2010, 11:54:56 am »
Guys, I'm pretty sure moe lu karyu is totally correct. It's not in English, it's not in Garman, not in Polish and in many languages it's not as well, BUT we cannot look on it through patterns of our native languages. Let's try to find a similar situation in Na'vi instead.

Where can me meet omitting plural from in Na'vi? Quite often. Look at this: 'a'awa tute, pxaya tute, hola tute, kinäa tute, vola tute, mrra tute... etc.

Every time we tell the number of things we DON'T use plural form. (Sometimes we can: pxaya sute, but that's rather exception). Why would we have to inform about the number of karyus while it is quite clear in Moe lu karyu?

Oer wivìntxu ngal oey keyeyt krr a tse'a sat. Frakrr.

Offline Ftiafpi

  • Olo'eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 4759
  • Karma: 123
  • Plltxe 'eylan ulte fpxäkìm.
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #212 on: December 16, 2010, 12:14:12 pm »
I think we need a ruling from Frommer. Anyone object if I shoot him off a quick email?

Offline eejmensenikbenhet

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1021
  • nl Netherlands
  • Karma: 15
    • Ketuwong aNeyn
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #213 on: December 16, 2010, 12:16:04 pm »
Guys, I'm pretty sure moe lu karyu is totally correct. It's not in English, it's not in Garman, not in Polish and in many languages it's not as well, BUT we cannot look on it through patterns of our native languages. Let's try to find a similar situation in Na'vi instead.

Where can me meet omitting plural from in Na'vi? Quite often. Look at this: 'a'awa tute, pxaya tute, hola tute, kinäa tute, vola tute, mrra tute... etc.

Every time we tell the number of things we DON'T use plural form. (Sometimes we can: pxaya sute, but that's rather exception). Why would we have to inform about the number of karyus while it is quite clear in Moe lu karyu?
You've got a point right there.
I think that's exactly how it works.

Ftiafpi, please do! ;)

Offline Ataeghane

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: 32
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #214 on: December 16, 2010, 12:37:22 pm »
Kea tìkin, ma eejmensenikbenhet.

Quote
I think we need a ruling from Frommer. Anyone object if I shoot him off a quick email?
No one would, but I thought it comes from Frommer.

Oer wivìntxu ngal oey keyeyt krr a tse'a sat. Frakrr.

Offline Ftiafpi

  • Olo'eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 4759
  • Karma: 123
  • Plltxe 'eylan ulte fpxäkìm.
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #215 on: December 16, 2010, 12:42:44 pm »
Kea tìkin, ma eejmensenikbenhet.

Quote
I think we need a ruling from Frommer. Anyone object if I shoot him off a quick email?
No one would, but I thought it comes from Frommer.

Well, I checked the wiki and I couldn't find any example from him on plurals and I don't believe William had found one either so I don't think we have an actual ruling from Karyu Pawl.

Anyway, sent off a quick email (quoted below):

Quote
Ma Karyu Pawl,

We've noticed that we can't seem to find a rule on proper usage of the duel and trial forms with regard to nouns. Could you clarify this for us? More specifically, we're wondering if one can drop the nouns' prefix and, if so, what then happens to the noun?

I guess the most simplest way to ask this is how many of these forms are correct?

Moe lu meharyu
Moe lu haryu
Moe lu karyu
Moe lu ayharyu (for obvious reasons I assume this one wouldn't be correct)

And then, to make sure we have everything straight, can you clarify the other two plural forms:

Pxoe lu pxeharyu
Pxoe lu haryu
Pxoe lu karyu
Pxoe lu ayharyu

Ayoe lu ayharyu
Ayoe lu haryu
Ayoe lu karyu

Hopefully this is a quick question.

~Ta Ftiafpi

Offline Carborundum

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
  • Karma: 24
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #216 on: December 16, 2010, 12:46:16 pm »
Anyway, sent off a quick email
Excellent. Hopefully this will be straightened out soon.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Offline NeotrekkerZ

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Karma: 40
  • Nume ralit lì'fyayä ulte nga tayìran Eywahu.
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #217 on: December 18, 2010, 02:12:51 pm »
Version 2.6:  Created 7.5, 9.16.  Updated LN 4.5, added var to modal verb section, fixed some typos.

I wanted to get this version released today, but since we do not have confirmation either way on section 2.1.1, and as I have been unable to find the original post where I got the info from, I've decided to remove it for the time being.  Should we get confirmation from Frommer either way, I will of course amend the document.
Rìk oe lu hufwemì, nìn fya’ot a oe tswayon!

Offline Ataeghane

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: 32
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #218 on: December 18, 2010, 03:04:55 pm »
Kea tìkin, ma eejmensenikbenhet.

Quote
I think we need a ruling from Frommer. Anyone object if I shoot him off a quick email?
No one would, but I thought it comes from Frommer.

Well, I checked the wiki and I couldn't find any example from him on plurals and I don't believe William had found one either so I don't think we have an actual ruling from Karyu Pawl.

Anyway, sent off a quick email (quoted below):

Quote
Ma Karyu Pawl,

We've noticed that we can't seem to find a rule on proper usage of the duel and trial forms with regard to nouns. Could you clarify this for us? More specifically, we're wondering if one can drop the nouns' prefix and, if so, what then happens to the noun?

I guess the most simplest way to ask this is how many of these forms are correct?

Moe lu meharyu
Moe lu haryu
Moe lu karyu
Moe lu ayharyu (for obvious reasons I assume this one wouldn't be correct)

And then, to make sure we have everything straight, can you clarify the other two plural forms:

Pxoe lu pxeharyu
Pxoe lu haryu
Pxoe lu karyu
Pxoe lu ayharyu

Ayoe lu ayharyu
Ayoe lu haryu
Ayoe lu karyu

Hopefully this is a quick question.

~Ta Ftiafpi
Is there any answer?

Oer wivìntxu ngal oey keyeyt krr a tse'a sat. Frakrr.

Offline Tirea Aean

  • The Blue One
  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 9903
  • nv Eywa'eveng
  • Karma: 243
  • Oeri ran lu srung
    • Tirea Aean
Re: Na'vi in a Nutshell
« Reply #219 on: December 21, 2010, 11:23:59 pm »
Quote from: NiaN 2.6

8.2 Streamlining Sentences
When two adjacent clauses have the same subject, you can drop the subject from the second
clause:
Zene nga k<iv>ä tseng-it a tsa-ne (nga) new k<iv>ä.
must you go where to it want go.
You’ve gotta go where you wanna go.

The same deletion rule applies to direct objects, when it can be understood from context:
I saw something [that] I want. Oe-l ts<ol>e’a ‘uo-t a (oe tsat) new.

The rules are correct but the examples are not grammatical to my understanding.

AFAIK, kä is not transitive and thus cannot have tseng as a direct object.
also, is tsane a word?

in parentheses I would have put (oel tsat).


kelku ikranä a hawnventi yom podcast (na'vi-only): https://tirearadio.com/podcast
Learn Na'vi Discord Chat: https://discord.gg/WF6qcmv

 

Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
| XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, LightStorm Entertainment or The Walt Disney Company.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi