Getting to Know You, Part 1

[Na'viteri Bot]

Kaltxì, ma oeyä eylan. Greetings from Los Angeles, where for a couple of days now I've been trying to overcome jet lag. I had hoped to post something from Paris, but a minor ailment had me out of commission for ... Continue reading →

http://naviteri.org/2010/09/getting-to-know-you-part-1/
      

[Plumps]

Good to know that it still works

Waiting for William's grammatical extractions

[Kì'eyawn]

Good to know that it still works

Waiting for William's grammatical extractions

Mllte oe.  I think i got everything, but Tsm. William has a nari ahìno.  He always manages to catch at least one thing i missed.

[wm.annis]

Waiting for William's grammatical extractions

That sounds like a nasty operation. 

These days there aren't usually big grammatical revelations in Frommer's Na'vi.  Mostly we're on to refinements.

6. rutxe läpivawk nì'it — our second non-contrived example of ‹äp›
9. a ftu txayo zola'u — our first use of ftu
10. A very clear example of po used with a female antecedent (Tsatsmukel alu Rini)

Section 10 contains our second use of ‹ats› in the wild, the first one I don't find confusing.  The first one was this:

  Fpìrmìl oel futa aynga natsew tsive'a fi'ut. (Evidential)

My problem here is that the ‹ats› is pleonastic (that's fancy-pants linguist-speak for "redundant").  We already have a verb of cognition there, fparmìl.  Using both together seemed a bit wonky to me.  But now we've got a nice simple use in a non-dependent clause:

  ...ulte kxawm tsatxele mengane za'atsu nì'eng and we might share that in common. (this is a quotation, thus "we" for menga)

That seems less confusing.  But, part 2 contains another funky use of ‹ats›...

[Plumps]

Not sure we discussed this bit from example sentences 3 & 4.

3. Everybody, please allow me to introduce (to you) my sister, Newey.
Ma frapo, ayngaru oeyä tsmukit alu Newey.
...
4. Allow me to introduce my sister, Newey te Tskaha Sorewn'ite.
Ayngengaru oheyä tsmukit alu Newey te Tskaha Sorewn'ite.

It seems that when the gender is clear (or made clear) in the conversation, the gender specific forms tsmuke or tsmukan are not needed, parallel to po (< poe/poan).
Thoughts?

[Prrton]

Not sure we discussed this bit from example sentences 3 & 4.

3. Everybody, please allow me to introduce (to you) my sister, Newey.
Ma frapo, ayngaru oeyä tsmukit alu Newey.
...
4. Allow me to introduce my sister, Newey te Tskaha Sorewn'ite.
Ayngengaru oheyä tsmukit alu Newey te Tskaha Sorewn'ite.

It seems that when the gender is clear (or made clear) in the conversation, the gender specific forms tsmuke or tsmukan are not needed, parallel to po (< poe/poan).
Thoughts?

This is absolutely the case. Folks may have noticed a similar thing going on in Txewì's story with the pronouns. Once the gender of the the people being discussed is established the relevant 3rd person pronouns drop to simply po.

All of the Na'vi names we know so far are gender-specific. Loak is a male name. Tsenu and Newey are both for females. Any ambiguity that *might* exist for the fraction of a second between tsmukit and the U of alu is gone by the time the listener(s) hear the person being introduced is Newey (a female). Presumably the crowd is small-ish and there are no blind folks in it, so there would likely be no ambiguity to start with.

I specifically discussed this example with K. Pawl and he made the decision to remove an -e that was there before the example was published.

It is perfectly NATURAL in Na'vi to refer to others and be referred to by others as tsmuk regardless of what your sex is or their sex or sexes might be. If people have hangups about this, they are bringing them along from their mother tongues and 'Rrtan cultures. The only place that we have an important, required distinction where the gender is FUSED into the words and required are 'ite and 'itan.

That said, it is not grammatically WRONG to identify (reestablish) gender unnecessarily, it's simply not the NATIVE Na'vi approach to handling that information in their normal conversations with each other. If you're doing that, you're likely speaking (or writing) with a 'Rrtan accent, tì'efumì oeyä. Also, I can totally see them (courteously) "over gendering" things when talking to or for sawtute, as well -- out of an understanding that the names and social contexts are not familiar to non-Na'vi.

[Plumps]

Sorry for necroing this but I think it fits best here.

Concerning smon ... the other day, I wanted to say 'he is familiar with this music' – would smon apply here too?
In Frommer's first suggestion for a translation, it's 'be familiar with' and not 'to know a person'? So I thought, could it be used for this example in English as well?

[Ataeghane]

I think you could use smon here.

[Sireayä mokri]

I think you could use smon here.

I agree, using omum seem a little odd to me.

[Ikran Ahiyìk]

Smon is much more better than omum in this case

[Prrton]

I agree with all of this.

{Smon} works for people, places, things, and skills/abilities.

For the latter (skills/abilities) the transition path is:

Ke smon oer fwa taron. (Might be from a vegetarian gathering culture.)
Smon oer fwa taron slä oe ke lu taronyu.
Smon oer fwa taron nìtxan taluna oe lu taronyu.

When bad at hunting...

  Oe tsun tivaron slä nìkeftxo wätx.
  Oel wätx futa taron nìwotx.
  Oel wätx tìtusaronit nìwotx.

When good at hunting...

  Oel fnan futa taron ha sunu nìtxan.
  Oel fnan futa taron nìtxan, slä vay set ke lu oer tsulfä a pxel pum Tsu'teyä anawm.

But with people, I believe that if you used {wätx} or {fnan} directly with the person in the patientive it would imply that you are manipulative, or perhaps reflect on the inner workings of the status of your relationship.

Oel fnan Tsenut. ("I'm good at getting what I want out of Tsenu.")
Oel wätx Kamunit. ("I just have no idea how to deal with Kamun." [They are having difficulties. Not getting along.])

This is just my personal *feeling* about this special case. It may be incorrect. I have never asked K. Pawl about this.

[Kì'eyawn]

...But with people, I believe that if you used {wätx} or {fnan} directly with the person in the patientive it would imply that you are manipulative, or perhaps reflect on the inner workings of the status of your relationship.

Oel fnan Tsenut. ("I'm good at getting what I want out of Tsenu.")
Oel wätx Kamunit. ("I just have no idea how to deal with Kamun." [They are having difficulties. Not getting along.])

This is just my personal *feeling* about this special case. It may be incorrect. I have never asked K. Pawl about this.

Hmm...  Tì'efumì oeyä, you could fnan or wätx a person—but that would lose Avatar it's family-friendly PG-13 rating 

[Prrton]

...But with people, I believe that if you used {wätx} or {fnan} directly with the person in the patientive it would imply that you are manipulative, or perhaps reflect on the inner workings of the status of your relationship.

Oel fnan Tsenut. ("I'm good at getting what I want out of Tsenu.")
Oel wätx Kamunit. ("I just have no idea how to deal with Kamun." [They are having difficulties. Not getting along.])

This is just my personal *feeling* about this special case. It may be incorrect. I have never asked K. Pawl about this.

Hmm...  Tì'efumì oeyä, you could fnan or wätx a person—but that would lose Avatar it's family-friendly PG-13 rating 

Yes. Well, that too! 

Falls under "interpersonal relationships" and *context*.