inclusive prefixes for oe

Started by Ateyo, September 10, 2013, 09:33:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Tìtstewan on September 14, 2013, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on September 14, 2013, 08:17:40 PM
moeng: three people?? but me+ means two...???   
Nope, it would be four people. :P


;D I see what you did there

me+ (2x) oeng (2 people) = 4 people ;D

but no. moeng isn't real.

Kemaweyan

#21
Well, if there is oeng = 2 people, why pxoeng is 3 people? If pxe+ means three, then 2 people should be moeng (because me+ means two), right? But 2 people is oeng. So I think moeng should be 3 people because moe = 2 and nga adds +1. And pxoeng would mean 4 people, because 3 + 1 :-\
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tìtstewan

Well, again hrh :)

oeng = 2 people in total = oe (1) + nga (1) = 2
pxoeng = 3 people in total = oe (1) + oe (1) + nga (1) = 3!
ayoeng = X people in total = [oe (1) + nga (1)] + oe (1) + oe (1) ... = 2 + X ( I + you + X people)

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Kemaweyan

Quote from: Tìtstewan on September 14, 2013, 09:41:39 PM
oeng = 2 people in total
pxoeng = 3 people in total

How is it possible? Why pxe  = 3 and nothing = 2? If pxe  = 3 in total then 2 in total = me.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tìtstewan

oeng because this is no singular it's already dual. Hence no me+ ;)
pxoeng because you have to indicate three people and it's trial. ;)

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Kemaweyan on September 14, 2013, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: Tìtstewan on September 14, 2013, 09:41:39 PM
oeng = 2 people in total
pxoeng = 3 people in total

How is it possible? Why pxe  = 3 and nothing = 2? If pxe  = 3 in total then 2 in total = me.

Because how is it possible that *moeng = 2 people total, if moe we already know is two people total? And we know that pxoeng is the trial inclusive. So it's three of something, one of them is the included speaker.

and this:

Quote from: Tìtstewan on September 14, 2013, 10:19:07 PM
oeng because this is no singular it's already dual. Hence no me+ ;)
pxoeng because you have to indicate three people and it's trial. ;)

Kemaweyan

So you mean that moeng = oeng like ayfo = fo? It could make sense...
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

Tìtstewan

#27
No! no! :o
moeng = oeng
moeng just doesn't exist, so not the same like ayfo and fo.

oeng is created by two words oe and nga, which represent already two persons: oe is a person and nga is a person, now what happens, if you combine these words into one word? Right, you get oe + nga => oeng!.

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Kemaweyan on September 14, 2013, 10:40:50 PM
So you mean that moeng = oeng like ayfo = fo? It could make sense...

well... the thing is, *moeng does not actually exist at all. but I suppose that would be it. I guess one could say (one of many explanations) moeng doesn't exist because we just say oeng.

Ninja points for Tìtstewan

Alyara Arati

I love you guys, but you do know that you are debating about something that is not a word, right?  ;D
Learn how to see.  Realize that everything connects to everything else.
~ Leonardo da Vinci

Tìtstewan

We just do theoretical discussion, with fun of course. ;) ;D

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

eejmensenikbenhet

I never said that *moeng and pxoeng would mean "three people".

Now, just to make my personal opinion clear, this is what makes the most sense to me:


Prefix| Pronoun| Inclusive Suffix| Total
| oe|| oe
| I|| I
me+| oe|| moe
two| I|| we (two)
pxe+| oe|| pxoe
three| I|| we (three)
ay+| oe|| ayoe
four or more| I|| we (four/a lot)
| oe| -nga| oeng
| I| you| we (one + you = 2)
me+| oe| -nga| moeng
two| I| you| we (two + you = 3)
pxe+| oe| -nga| pxoeng
three| I| you| we (three + you = 4)
ay+| oe| -nga| ayoeng/awnga
four or more| I| you| we (four/a lot + you = 5 or more)

I know however that it's not like this, but I'm sure that there are many other ways to explain the system.
(eg: pxoeng = pxe+oeng = 3 times (you and I) = three of us and three of you = 6)
If we can get to one uniform way at the end, that would be great, and if that means I have to give in to your theory, I'm fine with that.

Tìtstewan

#32
 :o
You took me+ and pxe+ too literally...

The inclusive form is basically the same like the exclusive form but the inclusive form contains nga because we have to mention someone of these two / three persons is included. Hence because the inclusive form have have nga.

And a interesting point:
If I were say pxoeng Could I mean oe and nga + nga?

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

eejmensenikbenhet

Quote from: Tìtstewan on September 15, 2013, 12:17:47 PM
:o
You took me+ and pxe+ too literally...

The inclusive form is basically the same like the exclusive form but the inclusive form contains nga because we have to mention someone of these two / three persons is included. Hence because the inclusive form have have nga.

And a interesting point:
If I were say pxoeng Could I mean oe and nga + nga?
Hmm... Interesting indeed, if I were to speak to two people I would say "... oe sì menga ...".
However, when I were to speak to one person with someone else behind me, I would say "... moe sì nga ...", maybe now you see why I think differently about *menga.

Taronyu Leleioae

Perhaps a more practical way to look at this, would be how you would say (three of us) in real life.  If you were in a crowd.  Or two approached the crowd with a third.  You would be inclined to perhaps point or sweep with your hand, and say, "the three of us" will go.  Or the three of (us you).  Admittedly it does look a bit odd in NiaN's chart from a pattern.  But that's what was approved.  From the chart, it really isn't "pxoeng" that is irregular (with the pattern), it is "oeng" in the dual form.  And having a hypothetical (non-approved) "moeng" makes it redundant, as there are already two in "oeng". 

Just my observation...

Tìtstewan

Quote from: eejmensenikbenhet on September 15, 2013, 12:54:39 PM
Hmm... Interesting indeed, if I were to speak to two people I would say "... oe sì menga ...".
Theoretically, this would be trial - "double" inclusive - pxoeng.

Quote from: eejmensenikbenhet on September 15, 2013, 12:54:39 PM
However, when I were to speak to one person with someone else behind me, I would say "... moe sì nga ...", maybe now you see why I think differently about *menga.
This would be also trial - "single" inclusive - pxoeng.


Quote from: Taronyu Leleioae on September 15, 2013, 01:03:41 PM
Perhaps a more practical way to look at this, would be how you would say (three of us) in real life.  If you were in a crowd.  Or two approached the crowd with a third.  You would be inclined to perhaps point or sweep with your hand, and say, "the three of us" will go.  Or the three of (us you).  Admittedly it does look a bit odd in NiaN's chart from a pattern.  But that's what was approved.  From the chart, it really isn't "pxoeng" that is irregular (with the pattern), it is "oeng" in the dual form.  And having a hypothetical (non-approved) "moeng" makes it redundant, as there are already two in "oeng".  

Just my observation...
oeng and pxoeng are both irregular.

Oeng tayaron.
We two will hunt.
[You and me] will hunt.

Pxoeng tayaron.
We three will hunt
[You, me and another person] will hunt.

Pxoeng tayaron.
We three will hunt.
[You, you and me] will hunt.

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Tìtstewan on September 15, 2013, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: eejmensenikbenhet on September 15, 2013, 12:54:39 PM
Hmm... Interesting indeed, if I were to speak to two people I would say "... oe sì menga ...".
Theoretically, this would be trial - "double" inclusive - pxoeng.

Quote from: eejmensenikbenhet on September 15, 2013, 12:54:39 PM
However, when I were to speak to one person with someone else behind me, I would say "... moe sì nga ...", maybe now you see why I think differently about *menga.
This would be also trial - "single" inclusive - pxoeng.


Quote from: Taronyu Leleioae on September 15, 2013, 01:03:41 PM
Perhaps a more practical way to look at this, would be how you would say (three of us) in real life.  If you were in a crowd.  Or two approached the crowd with a third.  You would be inclined to perhaps point or sweep with your hand, and say, "the three of us" will go.  Or the three of (us you).  Admittedly it does look a bit odd in NiaN's chart from a pattern.  But that's what was approved.  From the chart, it really isn't "pxoeng" that is irregular (with the pattern), it is "oeng" in the dual form.  And having a hypothetical (non-approved) "moeng" makes it redundant, as there are already two in "oeng". 

Just my observation...
oeng and pxoeng are both irregular.

Oeng tayaron.
We two will hunt.
[You and me] will hunt.

Pxoeng tayaron.
We three will hunt
[You, me and another person] will hunt.

Pxoeng tayaron.
We three will hunt.
[You, you and me] will hunt.

but then couldn't you say the same about ayoeng?

ayoeng = me (singular), and all of you guys
ayoeng = me and all of these guys, and you (singular)

Tìtstewan

ayoeng would be:

Ayoeng tayaron.
We all will hunt.
[You, me and other persons] will hunt.

Ayoeng tayaron.
We all will hunt.
[You, you, you, ... and me] will hunt.

That's the fun. :)

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Blue Elf

I'm wondering how many beginners will be confused by this thread ;D :D
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tìtstewan

The problem is, that we (I) don't know how we indicate the included person.
Example:
Pxoeng mivakto ko!
We three, lets ride!

Possibillity 1:
[I, you (whom I tell it) and another person], lets ride.

Possibillity 2:
[I, you (who I tell it) and other you (who I tell it too)], lets ride.

-| Na'vi Vocab + Audio | Na'viteri as one HTML file | FAQ | Useful Links for Beginners |-
-| Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-