Small Talk in Na'vi

[Doolio]

ma, ma, you're forgetting the vocative:)

kaltxi, ma tsmukan

['itan Na'rìngyä]

Ma smuk, peyfa ay'ong zìsìtyä sngä'ikrr aynga?

Spoiler

VOC smuk, peyfa FUT-'ong zìsìt-GEN sngä'ikrr PL-2?
(Direct address) siblings, how (what way) will-unfold year's beginning you (plural)?
Brothers and sisters, how will you celebrate the new year?

Open to corrections, as usual! Irayo!

[omängum fra'uti]

"Ulte kaltxì ngane lu, ma tsmuktu!  Oeru leiu fpom, irayo.  Ngayä tìnume lu ftue srak"

I think you can't use "nga-ne" here, because the "ne" means to a direction. It's only used when you say

That wouldn't really be right either.  "Kaltxì nga lu" - you are hello.  I was aware of what ne was when I used it, and I'm sure "A hello in your direction" as I used it is probably an English idiom, but I couldn't think of another way to phrase it at the moment.  Maybe oe tìng kaltxì ngaru - I give hello to you?  Or it's possible that "Hello to you too" just isn't something you'd express in Na'vi.

Ay'upxare fikrr lu sìlstan. Oel Terse'a ayli'uti fikrr tìng oeri fpom.

Ayupxare.  Remember ay+ causes lenition.  Also fìkrr not fikrr (With ì, the is sound).  However that's this-time not this-place.  For place, you'd want fìtseng.  For tse'a, you're splitting up a single consonant and shoving an infix in there.  In reality it is my belief that even if it were two consonants, you'd still stick the infix right before the noun.  So tsere'a for see.

message-PL this-time(now?) be happy. 1-ERG see-IPFV word-PL-ACC this-time give 1-TOP well-being
This message is this time, happy.  I see words this time give (about me) well-being.

That last part isn't terribly grammatical, though to be honest it might just be one of those things we can't say yet.

The messages (this place = here) good. Me seeing words here gives me happiness.
Ayupxare mìfìtsenge sìltsan lu.  Oel tsere'a aylì'u mìfìtsenge tìng oeru fpomit.

I won't guarantee that is any more grammatical, because "Oel tsere'a aylì'u mìfìtsenge" should be a noun phrase, which we don't know how to indicate yet.

I think it would be

Kaltxì, tsmukan. Oe lu fpom. Ngaru lu fpom srak?


Hello, brother. I'm well, how are you? (roughly)

For I am well, it seems like sticking with the same form the question uses would make sense - "Oeru lu fpom" - I have well-being.  The theory is that's just how they say they are well in Na'vi.

Ma smuk, peyfa ay'ong zìsìtyä sngä'ikrr aynga?

Again ay+'ong would be ayong because of lenition...  Except that 'ong is a verb, so you can't really pluralize it.  I think you're trying to say "How will you unfold your year's beginning?"
Fyape 'ìyong zìsìtyä sngä'ikrrti ayngal?
what-way unfold-FUT-PROX year-GEN beginning-ACC 2-PL-ERG
You will be unfolding years beginning how?

[MarioO]

For I am well, it seems like sticking with the same form the question uses would make sense - "Oeru lu fpom" - I have well-being.  The theory is that's just how they say they are well in Na'vi.

I don't understand this. I thought "lu" = "be, is, am, are and so on  please explain me that   

Kaltxì, tsmukan. Oe lu fpom. Ngaru lu fpom srak?
Hello, brother. I'm well, how are you? (roughly)

I think I have to say that this sentence don't says "how are you". It means "Are you fine, aren't you?" so you can't answer "I'm bad" or "I'm fine". Only "yes" or "no".

[omängum fra'uti]

I don't understand this. I thought "lu" = "be, is, am, are and so on  please explain me that   

You are correct, lu = be.  However a few languages which don't have a word for "to have" use a combination of the copula (be) and dative to express the same concept.  From some translations Frommer has given, it sounds like Na'vi may be one of them.  So oeru ___ lu = I have ___.

[Robert Nantangä Tirea]

For I am well, it seems like sticking with the same form the question uses would make sense - "Oeru lu fpom" - I have well-being.  The theory is that's just how they say they are well in Na'vi.

I don't understand this. I thought "lu" = "be, is, am, are and so on  please explain me that 

Well, the sentence "Oeru lu fpom" translates literaly as "I am well-being". "Fpom" stands for well-being, which works for the sentence "I have well-being". Unfortunately, Na'vi does not have a word for "have". A better way to say "I am well" is to use the adverb "well" which is nìltsan, making the sentence "Oe nìltsan lu". (Note, I have dropped the "-ru" because lu is an intransitive verb, it's an "A is B" comparison, so either direction you read it will mean the same thing. Thus, no subject/object markers are needed.)

[omängum fra'uti]

It does not have a WORD for have, but it can express it, as I did with oeru lu fpom.  That isn't "I am well-being" - the dative means that I am not directly participating in the being.  It literally translates as "I have well-being".

[Doolio]

robert:
it is not A=B comparison, you are not well-being, you have the feeling of well-being, or you are occupied by well-being. you are robert, you are human etc, but you are not sick, you are not sad, you are not well, you are just feeling that way. english idioms (i am well for instance) do not express that factical difference, but it exists anyway.

omangum:
isn't the literally translation 'to me is well-being', and 'i have well-being' is contextual meaning?

[omängum fra'uti]

omangum:
isn't the literally translation 'to me is well-being', and 'i have well-being' is contextual meaning?

Theoretically yes I'd agree...  However the dative doesn't really go with "to be" in english.  Well, it does (If you take the dative to literally be to XXX) but it's idiomic.  In one interview, Frommer gave the literal translation of "Ngaru lu fpom srak?" as "Do you have well being?".  It wouldn't be the only language to put the dative + copula together to express having, if that is indeed what is happening.  (Which is good, because if it was the only language to do that, it would certainly be incorrect since Frommer based grammar on parts of various languages.)

[Doolio]

yes, i am well aware of that, my language has similar (if not the same in some cases) constructs. we have all three constructs in use (i have; i am; to me is) to express various kinds of possesion (i use one way to say that i 'have' sickness, and the other way to say that i have a car).
i know it's idiomic, but to me it seems to be the 'most' literal translation, english does not have dative, so we actually can't translate it literally. but imho, it is easier to understand for english speakers, if you present a 'contextual path', so to speak - i am well -> to me is well-being -> i possess well being -> i have well being.

[kxanì tsamsiyu]

my first real attempt at a sentence. 

Oe-ri tolspang tsmukan, tsmuké ioang fa peyä tsko swizaw
My Brother and Sister killed the beast with His/Her bow and arrow

i hope this is OK but more than likely isn't.

feedback would be much appreciated.

Irayo.

[omängum fra'uti]

my first real attempt at a sentence. 

Oe-ri tolspang tsmukan, tsmuké ioang fa peyä tsko swizaw
My Brother and Sister killed the beast with His/Her bow and arrow

i hope this is OK but more than likely isn't.

feedback would be much appreciated.

Irayo.

Close, but you got the infix in the wrong place.  tsp<ol>ang.  The /ts/ is a single consonant so should never be split, but my belief is that the infix goes before the vowel of the syllable, not after the first consonant, it just is the same thing in most cases.  Also, <ol> isn't past tense, it just refers to a specific action in some indeterminate point in time.

You'll also need ergative and accusative markers...  But I'm not sure how that would work with two subjects like that.  But if you wanted to just make it siblings...  Also since there are two siblings, you'd need a dual or plural prefix on "their".

(The fe form of third person plural possessive is just a guess)
Oe-ri tsp<ìm>ang me-smuktu-l fa me-*fe-yä tsko swizaw
1-TOP kill-PST-PROX sibling-DU-ERG by-means-of 3-DU-GEN bow arrow
About me, two siblings just killed with their bow and arrow.

[Doolio]

brother and sister are both equal subjects, so i think it is fairly safe to put them both in ergative. just my 2 cents...

[kxanì tsamsiyu]

thanks for the feedback and correction, im slowly but surely getting the hang of it. The thing that gets me time and time again is this.

1-TOP kill-PST-PROX sibling-DU-ERG by-means-of 3-DU-GEN bow arrow

it just confuses me.

[Robert Nantangä Tirea]

"Ulte kaltxì ngane lu, ma tsmuktu!  Oeru leiu fpom, irayo.  Ngayä tìnume lu ftue srak"

I think you can't use "nga-ne" here, because the "ne" means to a direction. It's only used when you say

That wouldn't really be right either.  "Kaltxì nga lu" - you are hello.  I was aware of what ne was when I used it, and I'm sure "A hello in your direction" as I used it is probably an English idiom, but I couldn't think of another way to phrase it at the moment.  Maybe oe tìng kaltxì ngaru - I give hello to you?  Or it's possible that "Hello to you too" just isn't something you'd express in Na'vi.

This is where the intersting word "ma" comes into play. "ma" is used to direct what you're saying to someone. like the sentence "Kìyevame, ma tsmukan." means "See-you-soon, brother." It's a way to indicate what you just said or will say next is directed to someone, like using the "@" symbol on twitter or in a comment chain. so you could technically say, "Kaltxì, ma nga." to say "Hello (to you)" but "ma" isn't really used with "nga" because it is assumed you are already addressing the person you are saying hello to. So, generally you'll want to use brother/sister/proper name/family member name when using "ma", or simply say "Kaltxì!" is fine.

[omängum fra'uti]

This is where the intersting word "ma" comes into play. "ma" is used to direct what you're saying to someone. like the sentence "Kìyevame, ma tsmukan." means "See-you-soon, brother." It's a way to indicate what you just said or will say next is directed to someone, like using the "@" symbol on twitter or in a comment chain. so you could technically say, "Kaltxì, ma nga." to say "Hello (to you)" but "ma" isn't really used with "nga" because it is assumed you are already addressing the person you are saying hello to. So, generally you'll want to use brother/sister/proper name/family member name when using "ma", or simply say "Kaltxì!" is fine.

Right, but that's not really relevant in this case if what you're trying to say is "Hello to you too" because as you said...  "ma nga" isn't really used because, well, ma clarifies who you're addressing but "ma nga" isn't really clarifying anything.

[omängum fra'uti]

brother and sister are both equal subjects, so i think it is fairly safe to put them both in ergative. just my 2 cents...

The thing is... we don't know.  I don't want to go making up grammar rules, however much sense they make, without something to back it up.  I could come up with a number of other ways to indicate the same thing that make just as much sense.

thanks for the feedback and correction, im slowly but surely getting the hang of it. The thing that gets me time and time again is this.

1-TOP kill-PST-PROX sibling-DU-ERG by-means-of 3-DU-GEN bow arrow

it just confuses me.

That had me lost for a bit at first too.  For half a week I didn't do that at all because I had no idea what it is.  But it's useful to clarify what the sentence is saying.  The wiki has a good article on it.  Basically though...

1-TOP: 1 means first person, and -TOP means that it is grammatically the topic of the sentence.
kill-PST-PROX: kill is the word here, and it has past proximate inflection on it.
sibling-DU-ERG: Dual prefix (me) along with the ergative mark..  Who/what is doing the verb's action.
3-DU-GEN: Third person, dual, with the genitive suffix (Posessive)

It's basically a way to show the direct literal translation of something, independent of the restrictions of grammar in the language you are translating to.  In the case of Na'vi, this is very useful since English doesn't have some of the grammar and inflections that Na'vi does.

In general, you can look at the first line (The Na'vi) and the last line (The translated phrase) and ignore the gloss if it confuses you.  Then if you're confused how the Na'vi became what it did in english, the gloss breaks things down to the components.

[kxanì tsamsiyu]

thanks a lot for that explanation made things a little clearer but still a bit fuzzy on them but hey we are all learning.
i also get confused when im writing it because there is no word order so im like urhh where to put this word.
and also don't know which is going to be the topic and the dative but ill get used to it i suppose

just need to read up a lot more on that type of thing then i should be OK with most of it.

Irayo.

[omängum fra'uti]

Start with intransitive verbs, and transitive verbs w/ just ergative and accusative first.  Worry about topic and dative once you've got down.

And if the free order is tripping you up, just pick an order for now and stick with it.  SOV is a popular choice (Subject, object, verb) or SVO to mirror english order (Subject, verb, object).

[Atoki Atanyä]

Kaltxi!

Oe lu UpsetGoldfish.

Tsun oe ngahu niNa'vi pivangkxo a fi'u oeru prrte'lu.

Sorry for my accents, i am still not familiar with them and/or how to type them.

I also have a question: on many sites I've visited and videos I've seen, there seems to be discrepancies with the pronounciation of the (letter?) "ng" as found in "ngahu". Some pronounce it "nahu" and some pronounce it "n-gahu" (like the n in nose, and then the g sound in garden). Since this seems to be the place where this language is truly developing, could someone help me clear this up? many thanks.


I still need to come up with a name in Na'vi, any help would be greatly appreciated.

I can't wait until I can say all that in Na'vi

kiyevame ulte Eywa ngahu