Genitive in -ä; patientive in -t

Started by wm.annis, December 24, 2009, 02:37:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

wm.annis

So, this morning I wandered by the book store for a little treat for myself — the Activist Survival Guide.  Much of the book is about Pandoran wildlife and ecology, but it is also the source of our current word list. 

It also has two Na'vi songs.  In looking over those songs it sure seems to me that the genitive is more often just in , with -yä coming out for words ending in vowels.


  • ay-zìsìt-ä kato rhythm of the years
  • trr-ä sì txon-ä of night and of day

Also, there are several places where the patientive ending is just -t, rather than the -ti we're used to in oel ngati kameie:


  • kato-t täftxu oe-l I weave the rhythm

And -it is apparently yet another form:


  • oeyä tukru-l txe'lan-it t<iv>akuk let my spear strike the heart

So.  A sliver of light on the question of case endings.

omängum fra'uti

Maybe that's what Dr. Frommer meant when he talked about the various allomorphs of the inflections.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

wm.annis

Quote from: umängam fra'uti on December 24, 2009, 03:20:14 PM
Maybe that's what Dr. Frommer meant when he talked about the various allomorphs of the inflections.

Absolutely.

Now, if I could just figure out why nga takes -ti but kato takes -t.  The two possibilities I can think of just now are (1) that a monosyllabic word ending in a vowel takes -ti or (2) that any word ending with a stressed vowel must take -ti (it's kato).  And I won't even dwell on the possibility that it's just irregular for nga.

Is.

#3
Quote from: wm.annis on December 24, 2009, 03:27:20 PM
Quote from: umängam fra'uti on December 24, 2009, 03:20:14 PM
Maybe that's what Dr. Frommer meant when he talked about the various allomorphs of the inflections.
Now, if I could just figure out why nga takes -ti but kato takes -t.

Yeah, very strange. -yä coming in only after vowel-endings is straightforward, but if that were a rule so should kato. Also, do you have any idea of what that <iv> is all about? It shouldn't be an infix there, given that "strike" is present tense.

Anyway, thanks alot for posting these verses. Makes me want to buy that book!

wm.annis

Quote from: Is. on December 26, 2009, 10:12:01 AMAlso, do you have any idea of what that <iv> is all about? It shouldn't be an infix there, given that "strike" is present tense.

Ahh, Frommer has told us that not just tense markers go into the first position slot, but also mood and dependency markers.  So the <iv> in that sentence seems to be marking a wish or mild command.

QuoteAnyway, thanks alot for posting these verses. Makes me want to buy that book!

Every Na'vi language fanatic should have it, even if it appears to have been rushed to production rather carelessly.

The old Uriuujìn

Quote from: Is. on December 26, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: wm.annis on December 24, 2009, 03:27:20 PM
Quote from: umängam fra'uti on December 24, 2009, 03:20:14 PM
Maybe that's what Dr. Frommer meant when he talked about the various allomorphs of the inflections.
Now, if I could just figure out why nga takes -ti but kato takes -t.

Yeah, very strange. -yä coming in only after vowel-endings is straightforward, but if that were a rule so should kato. Also, do you have any idea of what that <iv> is all about? It shouldn't be an infix there, given that "strike" is present tense.

Anyway, thanks alot for posting these verses. Makes me want to buy that book!

Oe-l nga-ti kam<ei>e!

One thing to remember is that words in songs are built differently than regular words. I've been in music for a number of years, and it is not uncommon for a composer or just any old songwriter to change the words and vowels just a teeny-tiny bit to make it rhyme, or to have a certain number of syllables in it. I don't know if that's right, but that's my ten cents.

-Uryuujin

Prrton

Quote
One thing to remember is that words in songs are built differently than regular words. I've been in music for a number of years, and it is not uncommon for a composer or just any old songwriter to change the words and vowels just a teeny-tiny bit to make it rhyme, or to have a certain number of syllables in it. I don't know if that's right, but that's my ten cents.

Srane. Srane. I've already blabbed on and on about some of this (specifically from the songs, but on the agent marker [-l] too) in a different thread. Language change over time? (the 2 to 4 years as it was being created)... — Contractions? (e.g. Srane+Ke>>>Sra(ne)K(e)=Srak? — Poetic license (contextual metathesis) for the lyrics, which have to conform to some melody, which was already written by someone else?...

Sìltsrak? for "OK?" (I'm half joking. This is not attested anywhere.)

And I've been thinking about this a bit more too. I'm just saying it seems like it could be possible. Real language in the real world can be messy...




In order to end up with:
Tsun tute tsp-iv-ang-kxo


original?:
Tsun tuteti tsp-iv-ang-kxo


1st stage of contraction?:
Tsun tutet'tsp-iv-ang-kxo


final (very casual) form?:
Tsun tute-tsp-iv-ang-kxo



It's all still mysterious. Every time I think I have an idea about what the -kxo might be, I lose my confidence.

But, passivity markers or maybe a colloquial (hunter's register) "ya'know" come to mind

Oer'txoa, Smúk. Fi'u fìkìngä txelem k'läng'.  ;)

wm.annis

Quote from: Prrton on December 27, 2009, 12:13:29 AMIt's all still mysterious. Every time I think I have an idea about what the -kxo might be, I lose my confidence.

But, passivity markers or maybe a colloquial (hunter's register) "ya'know" come to mind

In this sentence it doesn't sound to me like it's tspivan(-)kxo but tspivang(-)ko (and I have no idea if it's clitic or a separate word).  But I'm with you in the temptation to see it as an interactional discourse marker like "ya know."

In terms of changing words for songs, the biggest sign of that in the two songs in the book is the elision of final vowels, represented in the book with parentheses, as in s(ì) and l(u).

Prrton

#8
Quote from: wm.annis on December 27, 2009, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Prrton on December 27, 2009, 12:13:29 AMIt's all still mysterious. Every time I think I have an idea about what the -kxo might be, I lose my confidence.

But, passivity markers or maybe a colloquial (hunter's register) "ya'know" come to mind

In this sentence it doesn't sound to me like it's tspivan(-)kxo but tspivang(-)ko (and I have no idea if it's clitic or a separate word).  But I'm with you in the temptation to see it as an interactional discourse marker like "ya know."

In terms of changing words for songs, the biggest sign of that in the two songs in the book is the elision of final vowels, represented in the book with parentheses, as in s(ì) and l(u).

I think there are definitely signs of elision/contraction in several places. Frommer's said in interviews that he did some simple "register" work and I'm confident that ohe (humble "I") for the meet-the-chief encounter and Kame'ngat as a simple/casual response to Oel kame nati or Oel ngati kameie in the "Ma Renée" NPR interview are examples of the extreme ends of the register spectrum. Ohe adds and is more polite. Kame'ngat subtracts and is more casual/colloquial.

For me there are still two possibilities for the mysterious "-ko/-kxo".

1. There are two different things. One might be a verb clitic *-kxo? and the other a phrase final *ko. It's plausible (although not likely) to me that we're dealing with two different things. Thai differentiates "near" vs. "far" with only tone ใกล้ (glai F (falling tone) = near) vs. ไกล (glai M (mid flat tone) = far). There is also a difference in the shape of the vowel ใ vs. ไ and the tone is also explicitly marked in the orthography, but one cannot *hear* that; only the tone difference. There is more than enough phonological difference in -k- vs. -kx- in Na'vi to enable a clear phonemic distinction.

2. But, he may be mispronouncing things too. He's nervous on camera for the national media, ko! If he says something wrong and doesn't catch himself and correct it, nobody else there in the interview is gonna know. The cameraman is not going to say, "Um, sorry Sir, but I think your ejective in that last clitic may have been a bit weak. Do you wanna shoot that one again?"  :-\ 

...Theories...

I'm tending to like the independent (or clitic) "ko-for-ya'know" theory. 20~30 some odd years ago (maybe even earlier) young Japanese speakers in and around Yokohama started trendily sticking じゃん (jan, a highly contracted form of de-wa-nai (desu ka)? meaning "isn't it (commonly known or felt)?") on almost everything. Semantically and pragmatically it very much mimics my interpretation of Frommer's "you know" from the Skxawng! article audio sample in the NYT. The "n" that remains in the contraction is the "n" morpheme from nai = "not". Could the "k" of the mysterious *ko be a parallel to this—having come from our well attested ke? Hmmmmm... (cf: Southern Black English [æn'ni'] (from "ain't it?" or "isn't it?".) If so, "Now where exactly where did that "o" come from...??" Mysteries galore!  ;D


Is.

Prrton: "Um, sorry Sir, but I think your ejective in that last clitic may have been a bit weak. Do you wanna shoot that one again?"

Haha, I would liked to have seen Frommer's face if that had actually happened.  ;)

Prrton, do you btw know what the <iv> in "tsun tute tspivang ko" is all about?

Prrton

Quote from: Is. on December 27, 2009, 05:21:29 PM
Prrton: "Um, sorry Sir, but I think your ejective in that last clitic may have been a bit weak. Do you wanna shoot that one again?"

Haha, I would liked to have seen Frommer's face if that had actually happened.  ;)

Prrton, do you btw know what the <iv> in "tsun tute tspivang ko" is all about?

I THINK and have been using it as if it is subjunctive/conditional... something along those lines. Some others believe that it marks the verb as "belonging" to another verb in the phrase/sentence. In the sentence you quote: tsun tute tspivang ko, that would 'attach' tspang (kill) to tsun (can), which appears earlier in the phrase. The MAIN reason why I think it's subjunctive is that it appears in oe.ru txoa l.iv.u, which I translate literally as "(May) forgiveness be to me" or more archaically in English: "Would that I have forgiveness (given to me by those who are in a position to grant it)". If I'm not mistaken, that archaic poetic "would" is the subjunctive of "will" (Old English wolde, past (and therefore homophonous with the subjunctive) of wyllan). The infix -iv- also shows up in some of the phrases in the hunting and weaving songs in the Survival Guide and the context suggests this same sense (and not necessarily any relationship to other verbs).

But.., I don't know for sure. I have to be prepared for almost everything I learn to be wrong and that it will need un- and re-learning.  :-\

omängum fra'uti

Oe-ru txoa l<iv>u also does not contain any other verbs for lu to be related to.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Prrton

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on December 28, 2009, 12:56:11 AM
Oe-ru txoa l<iv>u also does not contain any other verbs for lu to be related to.

Ngay nìwotx, ma tsmukan!  ;D

Is.

Quote from: Prrton on December 27, 2009, 06:40:08 PM
Quote from: Is. on December 27, 2009, 05:21:29 PM
Prrton: "Um, sorry Sir, but I think your ejective in that last clitic may have been a bit weak. Do you wanna shoot that one again?"

Haha, I would liked to have seen Frommer's face if that had actually happened.  ;)

Prrton, do you btw know what the <iv> in "tsun tute tspivang ko" is all about?

I THINK and have been using it as if it is subjunctive/conditional... something along those lines. Some others believe that it marks the verb as "belonging" to another verb in the phrase/sentence. In the sentence you quote: tsun tute tspivang ko, that would 'attach' tspang (kill) to tsun (can), which appears earlier in the phrase. The MAIN reason why I think it's subjunctive is that it appears in oe.ru txoa l.iv.u, which I translate literally as "(May) forgiveness be to me" or more archaically in English: "Would that I have forgiveness (given to me by those who are in a position to grant it)". If I'm not mistaken, that archaic poetic "would" is the subjunctive of "will" (Old English wolde, past (and therefore homophonous with the subjunctive) of wyllan). The infix -iv- also shows up in some of the phrases in the hunting and weaving songs in the Survival Guide and the context suggests this same sense (and not necessarily any relationship to other verbs).



Thank you for this very professional speculation.  :)

QuoteBut.., I don't know for sure. I have to be prepared for almost everything I learn to be wrong and that it will need un- and re-learning.  :-\

A very healthy attitude, I'd say. Since this language is in its infancy we should all be prepared to accept alot of re-learning. (As a buddhist practitioner, this is no problem.  ;))

nebwahs

Quote from: Prrton on December 27, 2009, 06:40:08 PM

I THINK and have been using it as if it is subjunctive/conditional... something along those lines.

I defs agree with this! Was thinking the exact same thing!