Word Football Game

[Blue Elf]

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.

Fully correct, original quote is: Action may not always bring happiness; but there is no happiness without 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.

First sentence is nearly correctly translated - no plural at the end (lenition occurs with mì-, but it doesn't mean plural).
I've selected unusual word order in second sentence to follow original text (I'm testing what Na'vi withstands - oeru hìtxoa). More correct should be:
Fko lu nawma re'o mì sìkangkem.

Original quote: In action a great heart is the chief qualification. In work, a great head.
If you have better translation, post it to compare.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

Fully correct, original quote is: Action may not always bring happiness; but there is no happiness without action.

if that's the original I would translate "happiness" as tìnitram.

First sentence is nearly correctly translated - no plural at the end (lenition occurs with mì-, but it doesn't mean plural).

I know. just seemed better for the context. mì hem could be both "in action" and "in actions".

Original quote: In action a great heart is the chief qualification. In work, a great head.
If you have better translation, post it to compare.

here the topical should be used and also "-ing" form of noun (tì-...<us>...).
kemìri sweylu txo lu nawma txe'lan. tìkangkemìri, nawma eltu.

['Oma Tirea]

First sentence is nearly correctly translated - no plural at the end (lenition occurs with mì-, but it doesn't mean plural).

I know. just seemed better for the context. mì hem could be both "in action" and "in actions".

However, technically speaking, the singular should be implied when in the presence of a leniting adposition, and when in doubt, look for the ay+

[Sireayä mokri]

kem tìsusiri ... tìkangkem tìsusiri

Such construction is actually incorrect. To form a gerund out of si verb, you need to drop "si" part (e.g. pamrel si > pamrel — writing). Tìsusi is not legal.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

so kusem and tìnusangkem?

[Sireayä mokri]

No, infixes are used with verbs only, so there's no need in them here. Just kemìri and tìkangkemìri.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

fine, corrected.

[Sireayä mokri]

kemìri sweylu txo livu nawma txe'lan. tìkangkemìri, nawma eltu.

The subjunctive (iv) is missing in lu (required with sweylu txo).

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

the structure for sweylu (if the action hasn't yet happend) is sweylu txo v<iv>erb. if you're asking yourself why I didn't put <iv> it's because I wanted a general sense.

[Sireayä mokri]

if you're asking yourself why I didn't put <iv> it's because I wanted a general sense.

I don't think it can be omitted here.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

so how would one use a general sense?

[Sireayä mokri]

Sweylu txo requires subjunctive to be used, so if you want to avoid it, use different syntax (without sweylu).

[Tanri]

So, regarding all informations i read about sweylu, it is a very special verb.
- It cannot be used modally, without txo.
- It is clear that sweylu cannot take direct object, but the selection of subjects is very limited as well: subordinate clause with fwa, something in topical case, without subject at all (generic sense).

I am confused with pair of examples: "Sweylu txo nga kivä." / "Nga sweylu txo kivä.". Technically, isn't "txo" a conjunction that effectively splits the entire phrase to main and subordinate clauses? In that case, the free word order cannot cross the clause boundaries, thus "Nga sweylu txo kivä." looks to me as incorrect. Isn't should be "Ngari sweylu txo kivä."?

[Sireayä mokri]

Well Frommer said that sweylu "acts somewhat like a modal", so nga here becomes its "subject". Just don't take txo in this syntax as you usually would, be it a conjunction.

[Tanri]

Irayo ma Sireayä.
Oel fpìl futa fìkemlì'u alu sweylu lu hiyìk slä eltur tìtxen si nìteng.

[Sireayä mokri]

Sran, tsaw hek nì'it, slä tsun livu lesar krro krro

[Tanri]

Original quote: In action a great heart is the chief qualification. In work, a great head.
If you have better translation, post it to compare.

Nawma txe'lan lu 'u letsranten frato fte flivä wina kemìri lehrrap, slä tìkangkemìri tsa'u lu nawma eltu.

... trying to say that the original English "action" speaks about "action" as in action game or action movie, not about "action" as generic term for doing something - as we know it in Na'vi. And i cannot resist to try another sentence on the "kem" theme :

Txo fko zene kemo sivi, sweylu fwa fko tsakem salyi mì hìkrr a tsakem tsayunslu, tup hawnkrr.

[Sireayä mokri]

Sweylu fwa is used only for actions that has already taken place. Here you talking about something that only would happen, so it should be:

  Txo fko zene kemo sivi, sweylu txo fko tsakem silvi mì hìkrr a tsakem tsayunslu, tup hawngkrr.

[Tanri]

Thanks for correction, i was not sure if i can use <ilv> combination here, not only subjunctive - so i (badly) choose fwa promising "freedom for infixes".
So - this is another difference from modals - <iv> after "sweylu txo" can be combined with aspect.

[Sireayä mokri]

I think it might be possible, but Frommer hasn't said anything about aspects in this construction, so don't take it as 100% correct