Laudative and Pejorative

[Atan'eveng]

I was wondering...you can use these infixes to show your attitude about a certain action like...
I'm going to Pandora (!!!) I ate that cake, etc etc....

But can you use these infixes to express your attitude when you're talking about something someone ELSE did?
e.g  You're going to Pandora (i hate you), you ate that cake, etc?

[Ftiafpi]

I was wondering...you can use these infixes to show your attitude about a certain action like...
I'm going to Pandora (!!!) I ate that cake, etc etc....

But can you use these infixes to express your attitude when you're talking about something someone ELSE did?
e.g  You're going to Pandora (i hate you), you ate that cake, etc?

Yep.

Ngal yolängom tsa'uti.
2-ERG eat-PER-PERJ that-thing-ACC.
You at that thing (and a I'm not happy about it)

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Typos (yolängom) ma ftiafpi.

Ma Atan'ite, it is important to note that the laudative and pejorative infixes show how the speaker feels about the action not the subject so "you're going to Pandora (and I hate you)" isn't an appropriate use of the perjorative but "you're going to Pandora which I'm happy about (because I hate you)" would be an appropriate use of the laudative.

[Ftiafpi]

Typos (yolängom) ma ftiafpi.

Ma Atan'ite, it is important to note that the laudative and pejorative infixes show how the speaker feels about the action not the subject so "you're going to Pandora (and I hate you)" isn't an appropriate use of the perjorative but "you're going to Pandora which I'm happy about (because I hate you)" would be an appropriate use of the laudative.

Whoops, you're right, though you did a typo as well the äng goes after the 'o'. Anyway, fixed my post.

[omängum fra'uti]

No he had it right, infixes always go before the vowel of their syllable.

[Ftiafpi]

No he had it right, infixes always go before the vowel of their syllable.

Oh, doh, I'm being an extra special skxawng today, I was thinking this was a two syllable word for no good reason.

[Atan'eveng]

Typos (yolängom) ma ftiafpi.

Ma Atan'ite, it is important to note that the laudative and pejorative infixes show how the speaker feels about the action not the subject so "you're going to Pandora (and I hate you)" isn't an appropriate use of the perjorative but "you're going to Pandora which I'm happy about (because I hate you)" would be an appropriate use of the laudative.

yep yep, i know, I was just giving an example, didn't mean that literally =)

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Ok, just wanted to make sure. Because this feature doesn't exist in most of the most commonly spoken languages here (as far as I'm aware) quite a few people get it wrong.

[Atan'eveng]

thank you so much, ma smukan 

[wm.annis]

Ok, just wanted to make sure. Because this feature doesn't exist in most of the most commonly spoken languages here (as far as I'm aware) quite a few people get it wrong.

I've never seen this exact thing in any language (which is hardly conclusive that it doesn't exist).  What is common is for a language to have a way to express that an action is to the speaker's benefit or disadvantage, sometimes with a verb affix.  These seem like a reasonable extension of that sort of thing.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Even more reason for people to get it wrong.

I was just covering my back with all the qualifiers, I didn't want someone to come up and immediately disprove me.

[Mithcoriel]

This is something I've been wondering about.
So if you're hunting, and you're really happy about the hunt, but I'm really unhappy about it, I would say
"Nga tar<äng>on"
right?
Whereas if you, the one doing it, was unhappy about it, and me, the one saying it, was happy about it, I'd say
"Nga tar<ei>on"
?

[wm.annis]

So if you're hunting, and you're really happy about the hunt, but I'm really unhappy about it, I would say
"Nga tar<äng>on"
right?

Yep.  In the Language Log guest post Frommer is pretty clear about this — "second-position infixes indicate speaker attitude—positive orientation, negative orientation, or uncertainty/indirect knowledge."  It's the attitude of the speaker that determines these affixes, not that of any particular participant in the sentence itself.

[Atan'eveng]

Oh I got it now.
It's always about the speaker's attitude. I can talk about something I did or somebody else did but always from my perspective, so to speak. Good =D

Oh and thanks, I didn't know about the language log at all. *skxawng*

kìyevame

[omängum fra'uti]

The language log was our first hint at the vocabulary.

It'sprobably worth noting that (And I MAY be wrong here) there may be an exception...  When you are quoting someone with the "san" construct, my understanding is that it is a DIRECT quote, so if they said <ei> then when you quote them you say <ei>, even if you personally don't feel good about it.

[Atan'eveng]

yeah...Probably when you're direct quoting someone, i guess you would use the same construct they used.

Eywa ngahu =)

[Aurume]

Fi'uri tsap'alute si oe.

Have I understand right that with evidential infix, sentence: "Ngal taratson talioang" means, You hunt sturmbeest (but you aren't sure that do s/he hunt it)?

[wm.annis]

Have I understand right that with evidential infix, sentence: "Ngal taratson talioang" means, You hunt sturmbeest (but you aren't sure that do s/he hunt it)?

All of the second position affixes are oriented to the speaker — not the grammatical subject of the sentence.  So ngal taratson talioangit means something like "you must be hunting sturmbeast," or "I suppose you're hunting sturmbeast" or something like that.  Just like if I say ngal tareion talioangit it means that I'm happy about this state of affairs.

[PunkMaister]

What about possesive pronouns such as Mine, Yours etc?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

You mean as in, if someone said "my head hurts", would you say "my" or "his"?

As na'vi only uses direct quotes, I'd use oeyä or whichever they use.