Endings and cases and orders and stuff.

[Tirea Aean]

fmi is a modal.

see my brand new video I uploaded today about Na'vi modals

See this post for video

[Kemaweyan]

irayo: [i."Raj.o] JC n., intj. thank you, thanks. It looks like a noun to me.

Hmm.. Pawl said "Then again, irayo isn't a true noun anyway." (from here)

Kemaweyan, didnt paul say that the dative of pamrel si is reserved for the person to whom one writes? and what you write is in the topic.

Oe pamrel si 'upxareru = WRONG.

'Upxareri oe pamrel si ngaru. = Correct: I write you a message.

coulda swore he didnt like the idea of using the what one writes as the dative. Pamrel si is the exception of the "si verbs get dative 'direct objects'" rule...

I thought he said that we should use topic only if there is a receiver of that message Actually we always used dative for objects of writing, even after this message from Pawl. Perhaps I understood something wrong, if there should be topic only, that would make more sense, IMO

[Säfpìltu]

Kemaweyan, didnt paul say that the dative of pamrel si is reserved for the person to whom one writes? and what you write is in the topic.

Oe pamrel si 'upxareru = WRONG.

'Upxareri oe pamrel si ngaru. = Correct: I write you a message.

coulda swore he didnt like the idea of using the what one writes as the dative. Pamrel si is the exception of the "si verbs get dative 'direct objects'" rule...

So, 'Upxareri oe pamrel si ngaru.
Can you explain the -ri (/-iri) for me? The Nushell doesn't actually cover it, and the term "topical" doesn't tell me much...

[Tirea Aean]

But pamrel si is tricky, since it goes against the general rule that the objects of si-construction verbs are in the dative.

we use the topical case for the thing being written.

this is the source of my point.

[Tirea Aean]

Can you explain the -ri (/-iri) for me? The Nushell doesn't actually cover it, and the term "topical" doesn't tell me much...

here is a practical post about the topic:

http://forum.learnnavi.org/syntax-grammar/navi-linguistics-practicum-topicals-(i)/

[Kemaweyan]

But pamrel si is tricky, since it goes against the general rule that the objects of si-construction verbs are in the dative.

we use the topical case for the thing being written.

this is the source of my point.

Well, irayo As I said before, in my opinion it makes more sense I just used dative as I thought other people do it... As I said yesterday in Russian section, I think that one of general rules in Na'vi is that the role of the word (noun) in the sentence is determined by the verb and the case. So I didn't like that an object of writing could be whether in dative or in topic depending on whether or not the recipient. But if there is always topic for an object, then this rule still works Irayo nìmun

[omängum fra'uti]

I've been doing a wee bit of wikipedic research on this, because from how it's been explained, it's merely a matter of author's will rather than a system of logic. I've found it is the latter.

An intransitive verb is a verb that is associated with only one noun or noun phrase. A transitive verb is a verb that requires both a direct subject and one or more objects. So it's in the nature of the verb itself. Alu, verbs that affect others than the noun doing it are transitive.

Let me experiment with a case. A father has a newborn son. He holds the son and shows him to his brother. Then he gives the child to his brother. He gives him to him. Or even He gives him him. Pol poti poru tìng. Without looking, I'll guess that tìng give is a transitive verb, because it requires at least one object...

Am I getting this right?

To add an illustration here as to why it must be learned which verbs are transitive or intransitive, rather than relying on another language (such as English) to dictate transitivity...

In English, you can change something.  "He changed everything".  In Na'vi, change is intransitive.  Fra'u lolatem everything changed; you need the causative to change something Pol fra'ut leykolatem he changed everything.

[Säfpìltu]

So you're saying that <eyk> makes intransitive verbs transitive?

[wm.annis]

So you're saying that <eyk> makes intransitive verbs transitive?

It does, but be careful with that.  It's not simply a way to take a Na'vi intransitive verb and make it transitive to fit with English semantics better.  The core sense of ‹eyk› is "to cause someone/something to X" where "X" is the original sense of the verb.  The causee needs a case marker, and with intransitive verbs that have received ‹eyk›, that results in a transitive verb.

  Po kä She goes.
  Oel poti keykä I make her go.

[Säfpìltu]

Yeah, I imagined as much. Well, it makes it easier to recognise, at least.

By the way; Po käpeykä would mean (s)he makes himself go, right? And then Po käpeykängä he forces himself to go, more or less... Right?

[Tirea Aean]

Yeah, I imagined as much. Well, it makes it easier to recognise, at least.

By the way; Po käpeykä would mean (s)he makes himself go, right? And then Po käpeykängä he forces himself to go, more or less... Right?

sounds about right to me. tho the only real difference between those two is that the second one, whoever says that sentence has a negative attitude about it.

[Säfpìltu]

That's what I was aiming for. Hence the use of forces rather than makes.

[Tirea Aean]

yeah. I guess you can say that.

the word make or force isn't in the sentence, so that part is up for translator's judgement. I can see how 'forced' is derived from the äng because it seems to have a more negative connotation.