Word Football Game

[Blue Elf]

oe tskxekeng si nìtxan sengmì (alu?) nìNa'vi nì'aw.

Tskxekeng tsranten frato nìngay. Oe mllte, plltxe nga nìltsan nìtxan

Training is really most important. I agree, you speak very well.

About my today:
Oe ke tìkangkem sami fìtrr. Oel tolok kelkuti, 'olem syuvet ulte uvan soli meiteru.

[Blue Elf]

Fkol tíngayit tslalyam nì'aw txo payeng tuteol tsatìngayit ro mì seng aeyawr amuiä ulte mì hrr amuiä.
one will understand the truth only if someone will tell that truth in the right place and the right time.

Why ulte? It does not connect two clauses, so I think sì must be used.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

Oe ke tìkangkem sami fìtrr. Oel tolok kelkuti, 'olem syuvet ulte uvan soli meitehu.

I didn't work today. I was at home, cooked food and played with the two daughters.

I would use <am> infix in all verbs instead of <ol>.

Fkol tíngayit tslalyam nì'aw txo payeng tuteol tsatìngayit ro mì seng aeyawr amuiä ulte mì hrr amuiä.
one will understand the truth only if someone will tell that truth in the right place and the right time.

Why ulte? It does not connect two clauses, so I think sì must be used.

yes I missed that. it sould be sì.

[Blue Elf]

Oe ke tìkangkem sami fìtrr. Oel tolok kelkuti, 'olem syuvet ulte uvan soli meitehu.

I didn't work today. I was at home, cooked food and played with the two daughters.

I think dative should be correct too - see NP8, slide with -ur/-ru
Any experienced opinion?

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

the dative is fine if you want to say: I played the two daughters. as far as I know you can't play a human but you play with him. a human is not a game.

[Plumps]

About my today:
Oe  tìkangkem ke sami fìtrr. Oel tolok kelkuti, 'olem syuvet ulte uvan soli meitehu.

With si-verbs the negative particle comes between noun/adjective and si:
oe tìkangkem ke sami – I didn't work
tìkangkem rä'ä si – don't work!

[Alyara Arati]

uvan -> nari

I hope this isn't cheating.  I wrote this last night.  Original errors have been left intact.

fìtxon kxayla taw
  fnu luke mokri
     na way a fko stum zerok
fìwopxìl wan
  mawlit sanhìyä
     teyra nari ke lu apiak

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

well you could have put it here without the mistake. the point is not only correcting others but the translation of the sentences. so it doesn't matter whether you put it with or without your mistake.

fìtxon kxayla taw
  fnu luke mokri
     na way a fko stum zerok
fìwopxìl wan
  mawlit sanhìyä
     teyra nari ke lu apiak

[Blue Elf]

uvan -> nari

I hope this isn't cheating.  I wrote this last night.  Original errors have been left intact.

fìtxon kxayla taw
  fnu luke mokri
     na way a fko stum zerok
pìwopxìl wan
  mawlit sanhìyä
     teyra nari ke lu apiak

This night high sky
is quiet without voice
like song which one nearly remember

Cloud hides
half of stars
white eye is not open (moon doesn't shine because of cloud ?)
Nice

[Alyara Arati]

Irayo nìtxan ma Blue Elf!  Yes, the moon doesn't shine because of the clouds.

fìtxon kxayla taw
  fnu luke mokri
     na way a fkol stum zerok
fìwopxìl wan
  mawlit sanhìyä
     teyra nari ke lu apiak

I think this translates just fine as "cloud hides", but it's also correct as "clouds hide", which is what I wrote: (ay)fìwopxìl wan...

[Blue Elf]

Irayo nìtxan ma Blue Elf!  Yes, the moon doesn't shine because of the clouds.

fìtxon kxayla taw
  fnu luke mokri
     na way a fkol stum zerok
fìwopxìl wan
  mawlit sanhìyä
     teyra nari ke lu apiak

I think this translates just fine as "cloud hides", but it's also correct as "clouds hide", which is what I wrote: (ay)fìwopxìl wan...

Oh, I didn't see the plural, what confused me and I treated it as a mistake. Ok, I must think more next time.
And question - according this post agentative can be used only when it has its accusative "brother". But it is not here, so some different rule works here?

[Sireayä mokri]

And question - according this post agentative can be used only when it has its accusative "brother". But it is not here, so some different rule works here?

It's implied here: na way a fkol [fìwayit] stum zerok.

[Tanri]

It's implied here: na way a fkol [fìwayit] stum zerok.

In this case (attributive subordinate clause with implied object), can we use both variants fko/fkol, or the nominative one has to be looked at as a mistake?
In other words, is the -l here strictly required by grammar, or is it a sort of "remember, there is some implied/unwritten object" warning?

Ngeyä aylì'u lor lu nìtxan, ma Alyara Arati.

[Sireayä mokri]

It is required, indeed. Implying wayit won't make agentive disappear.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

and there is a subject and an object (direct) or just one of them they must be marked. if one of them doesn't apear it means the other is obvious or is talked about. for example in English you can say "the house which I was in". you don't say "house" again after the "which" because it's implied from the text. same in Na'vi: kelku a oel tolok. it won't be a mistake to put another "kelku" with the patientive after "a", but it would look (or sound) weird and one will know you're not a native speaker. hope you understand.

[Tanri]

Irayo seiyi mengaru nìtxan, set lu law nì'ul oeru tsa'u a lolawk awngal.

[Sireayä mokri]

and one will know you're not a native speaker.

One would know it anyway

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

not if he doesn't see you.

[Blue Elf]

Some quotes for today:

Kem ke zene mivunge syayvit frakrr, slä ke lu syayvi luke kem.
Nawma txe'lan lu useyka tìtsun mì hem. Nawma re'o mì sìkangkem lu fko.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

Kem ke zene mivunge syayvit frakrr, slä ke lu syayvi luke kem.

an action doesn't have to always bring luck, but there is no luck without an action.

Nawma txe'lan lu useyka tìtsun mì hem. Nawma re'o mì sìkangkem lu fko.

the great heart is the leading ability in actions. great head in work is one.

couldn't understand the second sentence in the second quote. also in the first sentence in the same quote I'm uncomfortable with useyka tìtsun.