Am + ei question

[Eight]

I get that in a two syllable verb (e.g. taron), the past tense marker would take 2nd position, and the laudative would go in the 3rd.

e.g.
Oe tamaron - I hunted
Oe tamareion - I hunted (and I'm happy I did!)

And I've seen the way infixes can nest, with the inner infix dropping it's initial vowel
e.g.
Am + iv in lavmu (if I had been)

But I'm not sure if this is valid in a monosyllabic verb form
Oe <noun/adjective> l<a<i>m>u
Oe <noun/adjective> laimu - I was (and I was happy to be so)

Something about it bothers me. Maybe I'd be happier if ai was a diphthong... but then awaiei exists (some flower thing on Pandora)...

Does it look ok from what we know so far?

[Taronyu]

If you've seen this anywyere, it's a mistake. The <iv> infix does not meld with tense. The only one we know that does that is <er>, and only with the past tenses: <a<r>m> and <ì<r>m>.

[Eight]

If you've seen this anywyere, it's a mistake. The <iv> infix does not meld with tense. The only one we know that does that is <er>, and only with the past tenses: <a<r>m> and <ì<r>m>.

Oh.

It's in the pocket guide...

PAST SJV: If I had been a teacher.
Txo l<a<v>m>u karyu.

[Eight]

So, do you think lu + am + ei would be l<a<ei>m>u (laeimu)?

Or is it just too early to tell?

[Taronyu]

We have no proof whatsoever that subjunctives take tense. I'd be really interested to see where Karyu Amawey came up with that, and if it's an actual Frommerian sentence.

As for lu and <ei>, that's different. tense and affect go together, because they go in different places.

l<1><2><3>u are the positions for monosyllabic words. Thus,

l<am><ei>u.

[Eight]

l<1><2><3>u are the positions for monosyllabic words. Thus,
l<am><ei>u.

Fantastic. That's helped a great deal.

Irayo ma Taronyu. You're a star!

[Tsamsteu]

that is true, i was just posting the same answer as Taronyu, for all monosyllabic words, such as lu and tsun (to be able), if you have a tense infix + pejorative/laudative effect infix, they follow the same order after the first consonant: tense infix, then pej/laud infix

[kewnya txamew'itan]

We don't have any clues about how moods or aspects other the imperfective <er> meld with tense (although there must be rules for either melding them or ordering them as they take the same position and it would be illogical to only allow present subjunctives or present perfectives).

Personally I follow the same melding rules as <er> but always with a note saying in no uncertain terms that this is based on extrapolation from two examples with <er> and so is likely to be wrong.

[Taronyu]

We don't have any clues about how moods or aspects other the imperfective <er> meld with tense (although there must be rules for either melding them or ordering them as they take the same position and it would be illogical to only allow present subjunctives or present perfectives).

Personally I follow the same melding rules as <er> but always with a note saying in no uncertain terms that this is based on extrapolation from two examples with <er> and so is likely to be wrong.

It wouldn't be illogical. You can consider the present not as the present, but as the plain form. Often, subjunctives or infinitives are not marked for tense. Consider English.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

If the subjunctive marker in Na'vi is only an infinitive/etymological subjunctive marker then it would be logical to only allow it in the present/plain form. If it is also used in the modern way for possible/uncertain things and/or wishes, then it is needed in all tenses.

[Taronyu]

Fair point.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

The problem is that we don't know enough about the subjunctive marker to make an educated decision.

The only two examples in the corpus are used as infinitive markers, for all we know it could be wrong to use it as an English subjunctive in which case using it with a tense doesn't make sense.