Did I get this right?

Started by Tanax, January 08, 2010, 06:40:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tanax

I'm trying to learn all of these affixes, but they are quite difficult, mostly because I suck at grammar + english isn't my native language so english grammatical words is even more difficult to understand.

So my question is, if I wanted to say "I am hunting with you", it should be like

Oeri lu teraron ngahu ?
Oe-TOP lu t<er>aron nga-with
I be hunting you-with

I am hunting with you

Correct?

Taronyu

Almost perfect. Since you have the imperfective in there, you really don't need the lu. This word isn't meant for passive voice, it's meant to connect A = B in some sentences.

kewnya txamew'itan

The sentence isn't about oe, oe is doing the verb so oe should be ergative (the subject) (sorry if that didn't help but I'm not sure how better to say it) with the -l suffix.

oe-l t<er>aron nga-hu

would be perfect.

Well done.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

Taronyu

Quote from: kawng mungeyu on January 08, 2010, 12:58:38 PM
The sentence isn't about oe, oe is doing the verb so oe should be ergative (the subject) (sorry if that didn't help but I'm not sure how better to say it) with the -l suffix.

oe-l t<er>aron nga-hu

would be perfect.

Well done.

I don't think this is true. There is no object of the verb, in this sentence. Oe is indeed the subject, but I'm not hunting anything, so it's not a transitive verb. Only when the object is present do you change the inflection to -l. Does this make sense? So,

Oe-l taron yerikit. Here, I am hunting the yerik. Since there is an object present, you need the ergative.
Oe taron. Here, there is no object present, so there is no ergative.

Tanax

I understand the part about lu not being neccessary.
Regarding Oe-l, which is the correct way now? Should it be Oe-ri or Oe-l? And why?

Irayo ma aysmukan!

Taronyu

Quote from: Tanax on January 08, 2010, 01:25:24 PM
I understand the part about lu not being neccessary.
Regarding Oe-l, which is the correct way now? Should it be Oe-ri or Oe-l? And why?

Irayo ma aysmukan!

It should be either Oe, without an ending, or Oe-ri, as you said, which makes it the topic. It's not ergative, so it doesn't take the -l. And the -ri can go on any noun, pretty much.

kewnya txamew'itan

Ma Taronyu sì ma Tanax the verb's transitivity is not affected by whether or not the object is mentioned, only that there can be one. It is better to define an intransitive verb as one that cannot have a direct object (like the wikipedia page on transitivity) and then define transitive verbs as all the others. In this case, as taron can have an object (such as yerrick in your post) it is transitive.

So I stand by oel.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

Taronyu

Hunt doesn't require an object. I submit that the transitivity of a verb can be variable.

kewnya txamew'itan

It is possible that Na'vi allows for ambitransitive verbs but we don't know and so oel is not wrong, equally, neither is oe. Oeri, whilst correct, is probably excessive.

In summary, neither oe-l t<er>aron nga-hu and oe t<eraron ngahu are wrong.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

Tanax

What does excessive means?

And transitive verbs are verbs that require direct subject and direct object, right?
Like "I need you", need is a transitive verb because of the direct subject "I" and direct object "you".

That would then be translated to na'vi like so:
Oel kin ngati

??

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: kawng mungeyu on January 08, 2010, 01:47:49 PM
It is possible that Na'vi allows for ambitransitive verbs but we don't know and so oel is not wrong, equally, neither is oe. Oeri, whilst correct, is probably excessive.

In summary, neither oe-l t<er>aron nga-hu and oe t<eraron ngahu are wrong.
Well one of them IS wrong, we just don't know which one.

I'm on the side of leaving off a noun doesn't change the transivity.

Consider...

"I hunt the hexapods"
Oel taron yerikit
Straight forward "see spot run" sentence there.

"The hexapods are hunted"
Taron yerikit.
The hexapods aren't what is doing the hunting, so you can't drop the -t suffix there...  So now you have -t without -l.

"I hunt"
Oe taron?
Oel taron?
Just because I don't say who is doing the hunting doesn't make hunt intransitive, SOMEONE is still hunting the hexapods, I just didn't say who.  So in that vein, just because I don't say WHAT it is I'm hunting doesn't mean I'm not hunting something, I just don't say what.  So why would the former not change the transitivity and the latter will?

So I hold that leaving off the accusitive of a transitive verb doesn't automatically make it intransitive.  English is actually very lax by many standards when it comes to transitivity, but there is no indication that is true of Na'vi.

Of course, it's worth reiterating that all of what I just wrote could be completely wrong, and the direct subject of a transitive verb with an omitted object would lose it's suffix.  Until we know the grammar rules, the best we can do is speculate.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

kewnya txamew'itan

Quote from: Tanax on January 08, 2010, 02:18:29 PM
What does excessive means?

And transitive verbs are verbs that require direct subject and direct object, right?
Like "I need you", need is a transitive verb because of the direct subject "I" and direct object "you".

That would then be translated to na'vi like so:
Oel kin ngati

Excessive means that it is too much. Your probably putting more stress on oe than is needed.

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on January 08, 2010, 04:42:46 PM
Quote from: kawng mungeyu on January 08, 2010, 01:47:49 PM
It is possible that Na'vi allows for ambitransitive verbs but we don't know and so oel is not wrong, equally, neither is oe. Oeri, whilst correct, is probably excessive.

In summary, neither oe-l t<er>aron nga-hu and oe t<eraron ngahu are wrong.
Well one of them IS wrong, we just don't know which one.

I'm on the side of leaving off a noun doesn't change the transivity.

Consider...

"I hunt the hexapods"
Oel taron yerikit
Straight forward "see spot run" sentence there.

"The hexapods are hunted"
Taron yerikit.
The hexapods aren't what is doing the hunting, so you can't drop the -t suffix there...  So now you have -t without -l.

"I hunt"
Oe taron?
Oel taron?
Just because I don't say who is doing the hunting doesn't make hunt intransitive, SOMEONE is still hunting the hexapods, I just didn't say who.  So in that vein, just because I don't say WHAT it is I'm hunting doesn't mean I'm not hunting something, I just don't say what.  So why would the former not change the transitivity and the latter will?

So I hold that leaving off the accusitive of a transitive verb doesn't automatically make it intransitive.  English is actually very lax by many standards when it comes to transitivity, but there is no indication that is true of Na'vi.

Of course, it's worth reiterating that all of what I just wrote could be completely wrong, and the direct subject of a transitive verb with an omitted object would lose it's suffix.  Until we know the grammar rules, the best we can do is speculate.

You make a good point (first line), I should have said, at this stage there is too little evidence to say either one is wrong (although one probably (it could be stylistic or vary from clan to clan) is).

The problem with the hexapods example is you're also changing to a passive voice.

Of course, I'm just playing devil's advocate but I think it's right to show both sides.

The I hunt yerik example though is good. If say, you belonged to a tribe that only hunted yerik, you would probably not say the yerikit but it is still there (just ellipipsed out) so, in my eyes it should not change its transitivity.

There might be some verbs that it makes sense to be ambitransitive but I don't think taron is one of them.
Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's