Na'vi Language Writing Contest

[Carborundum]

But writing about the language itself is OK, isn't it?

Hard to get any more on-topic than that, no?

[Ataeghane]

Hard indeed.

['Oma Tirea]

Can fko use any loanwords other than the ones listed in the dictionary?

...and if so, there should be some sort of English allophony standard that they should be held to.  *points to the last line in sneyä sig for the unteenth time...*

[Maria TunVrrtep]

I'm excited.  I already sent in a submission.

It's probably horrible but hey it was worth doing it. 

ta TunVrrtep

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

And words like plltxetsenge? Words that are in use, but not official?

If you're referring to this website, I say "Nivume Na'vi Tseng." It literally means "Learn Na'vi Place." Hope this helps!

-Txonä Rolyu

[Carborundum]

And words like plltxetsenge? Words that are in use, but not official?

If you're referring to this website, I say "Nivume Na'vi Tseng." It literally means "Learn Na'vi Place." Hope this helps!

-Txonä Rolyu

TTMNTW
The individual words do mean that, but strung together like that they are ungrammatical. If you want to say "Learn Na'vi Place" in Na'vi, that would be fkol lì'fyat leNa'vi tsaro ftia a tseng or leNa'via lì'fyayä tìnusumeyä tseng or some such.

[wm.annis]

And words like plltxetsenge? Words that are in use, but not official?

Please, no.  Only official words and grammar for this contest.

[wm.annis]

leNa'via lì'fyayä tìnusumeyä tseng or some such.

That's not possible, either, unfortunately.  Gerunds cannot take arguments (subjects, objects) like that.

[Carborundum]

leNa'via lì'fyayä tìnusumeyä tseng or some such.

That's not possible, either, unfortunately.  Gerunds cannot take arguments (subjects, objects) like that.

Koren a'awve tìruseyä 'awsiteng

What's the difference?

[wm.annis]

Koren a'awve tìruseyä 'awsiteng

What's the difference?

'Awsiteng is an adverb, not a core argument.  A lot of discussion went into this at the Workshop: no core arguments for gerunds.

[Carborundum]

Koren a'awve tìruseyä 'awsiteng

What's the difference?

'Awsiteng is an adverb, not a core argument.  A lot of discussion went into this at the Workshop: no core arguments for gerunds.

I was thinking koren a'awve might have been an argument. So, what you're saying is that in leNa'via lì'fyayä tìnusumeyä tseng, leNa'via lì'fya is an argument of tìnusume, but tseng is not?

[Kì'eyawn]

And words like plltxetsenge? Words that are in use, but not official?

If you're referring to this website, I say "Nivume Na'vi Tseng." It literally means "Learn Na'vi Place." Hope this helps!

I've been calling it Pängkxotseng leNa'vi since i started—although i'm sure i got that from someone else.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Koren a'awve tìruseyä 'awsiteng

What's the difference?

'Awsiteng is an adverb, not a core argument.  A lot of discussion went into this at the Workshop: no core arguments for gerunds.

I was thinking koren a'awve might have been an argument. So, what you're saying is that in leNa'via lì'fyayä tìnusumeyä tseng, leNa'via lì'fya is an argument of tìnusume, but tseng is not?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think an 'argument' in this case would be a noun or verb, and would typically (but not always) be after the gerund. An English example might be 'breaking news'. "news' here is the argument because it is the thing that is 'breaking'. But fmawn tìlsen nìwin fits the Frommerian model, as nìwin is an adverb.

[Kemaweyan]

Tìlsen is tì-l<us>en, right? If you need to create attribute (like "breaking news" - the news which are breaking), you shouldn't use gerund, because gerund is a noun. Instead you need a particle lusen with attributive marker a:

  lusena fmawn (nìwin) - breaking news

Although I would say "breaking news" as syena fmawn...

[Carborundum]

Koren a'awve tìruseyä 'awsiteng

What's the difference?

'Awsiteng is an adverb, not a core argument.  A lot of discussion went into this at the Workshop: no core arguments for gerunds.

I was thinking koren a'awve might have been an argument. So, what you're saying is that in leNa'via lì'fyayä tìnusumeyä tseng, leNa'via lì'fya is an argument of tìnusume, but tseng is not?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think an 'argument' in this case would be a noun or verb, and would typically (but not always) be after the gerund. An English example might be 'breaking news'. "news' here is the argument because it is the thing that is 'breaking'. But fmawn tìlsen nìwin fits the Frommerian model, as nìwin is an adverb.

I don't see how a word's position relative to the gerund can have any bearing on whether it's an argument or not, at least not in Na'vi. If it did matter, would tìruseyä koren be incorrect while koren tìruseyä is perfectly fine? That just doesn't seem right.
What about awngeyä tìtusaron flolä? Is that incorrect too?

See, I was already aware that gerunds cannot take arguments, but I guess I don't really understand what exactly constitutes an argument.

[wm.annis]

See, I was already aware that gerunds cannot take arguments, but I guess I don't really understand what exactly constitutes an argument.

When speaking of verbs, "arguments" are those nouns/pronouns which are required for the verb's meaning to be complete.  "Walk" by itself and without context is incomplete.  In "I walk" or "The woman walks" the sense is completed by the arguments "I" and "the woman."  A transitive verb has two core arguments, subject and direct object, and a ditransitive like "give" has three, subject, direct object and indirect object.

[Carborundum]

See, I was already aware that gerunds cannot take arguments, but I guess I don't really understand what exactly constitutes an argument.

When speaking of verbs, "arguments" are those nouns/pronouns which are required for the verb's meaning to be complete.  "Walk" by itself and without context is incomplete.  In "I walk" or "The woman walks" the sense is completed by the arguments "I" and "the woman."  A transitive verb has two core arguments, subject and direct object, and a ditransitive like "give" has three, subject, direct object and indirect object.

Right, but what about arguments of gerunds? Which, if any, of my above example sentences are correct in this regard?

[wm.annis]

Right, but what about arguments of gerunds? Which, if any, of my above example sentences are correct in this regard?

Gerunds do not get arguments.  They still have enough left of their verbal nature that they can have adverbs tìrusey 'awsiteng, but they are not permitted subjects or objects.  So, *awngeyä tìtusaron flolä is incorrect — use awngal taron a fì'u flolä or something along that construction.

I was thinking koren a'awve might have been an argument. So, what you're saying is that in leNa'via lì'fyayä tìnusumeyä tseng, leNa'via lì'fya is an argument of tìnusume, but tseng is not?

Correct.  Tseng is just a noun to which you're attaching a genitive attribute, in this case a gerund.  So, tseng tìnusumeyä place of learning is fine, but once you try to add a subject or direct object to tìnusume you need to change the construction.

[Carborundum]

Understood. Thanks.

[Kì'eyawn]

Right, but what about arguments of gerunds? Which, if any, of my above example sentences are correct in this regard?

Gerunds do not get arguments.  They still have enough left of their verbal nature that they can have adverbs tìrusey 'awsiteng, but they are not permitted subjects or objects.  So, *awngeyä tìtusaron flolä is incorrect — use awngal taron a fì'u flolä or something along that construction.

Hìtxoa, ma 'eylan, but could you explain this a little more?  I'm confused.  I get why something like *Awngeyä tìtusaron yerikit flolä is not permissible—it needs to be something like Tolaron awngal yerikit a fì'u flolä.  But Awngeyä tìtusaron flolä seems fine to me.  We've seen gerunds take verbs before, haven't we?