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.

Ateyo

I am reading through Na'vi in a nutshell at the part about pronouns and prefixes for inclusive. for oe, it says dual exclusive is "moe", and dual inclusive is oeng. Is this right? Shouldn't the dual inclusive be "moeng"? Or is this just one of those exceptions?

Alyara Arati

With oeng, the smallest number you can have and still be we is two.  It's "assumed", and the "m" becomes unneeded.  Does that make sense?  If not, let me know and I'll try to explain it better.  Thank you for asking this question.  Questions are always good! :)
Learn how to see.  Realize that everything connects to everything else.
~ Leonardo da Vinci

Tìtstewan

#2
Kaltxì ma Ateyo!

Tse, the pronouns hasn't infixes but prefixes like me-, pxe- etc.
oe is I
moe is we both (exclusive)
oeng is we both (inclusive)

*moeng doesn't exist. because oeng IS already mean two persons (dual).

If you want, just take a look at the The Pronoun Guide. There are listened a lots of form of the pronouns. ;)

A note about Na'vi in a nutshell:
This book is a bit outdated and I know some members will rewrite it new.

Edit: ninja'd ;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. |-

Ateyo

Irayo, ma meylan! That makes perfect sense, I didn't think of it that way.

Blue Elf

Also you can look at this prezzi lesson: http://prezi.com/dfadopu1e1cc/np2-me-and-mine/
Here are very nice pictures, which show difference between exclusive and inclusive pronouns clearly.
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tìtstewan

#5
Hey cool! I should add this link to the pronoun guide too! - done!

-| 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

#6
I have always thought of moeng as "the two of us (moe) + you (nga)" (Same goes for pxe-.)
Why? Well, if you look at ayoeng, being "all of us (ayoe) + you (nga)", it is a very simple deduction.

An example from Eyktan Falulukanä:

   An excerpt from Tsun 'ivefu srak tìyawnit fìtxon?:
      Timon: They'll fall in love and here's the bottom line:
      Timon: Fol run tìyawnit ulte fì'u lu tìngay:
      Our trio's down to two.
      Moeng set slu oeng.

[keytsyokx]This is not from the version on the Wiki, I still haven't updated the wiki...[/keytsyokx]

Tìtstewan

I searched the whole Na'viteri and I couldn't find any examples for the use of *moeng.
(The Lion King should be corrected, I think)

Quote from: eejmensenikbenhet on September 11, 2013, 07:15:24 AM
      Our trio's down to two.
      Moeng set slu oeng.
Ah, interesting! Hmm...if I understood this sentece correct, it should be:
Pxoeng set slu oeng.
We three become now (we) two.

:)

-| 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. |-

Plumps

*moeng doesn't exist ;)
Theoretically this would be another trial (as eejmensenikbenhet  suggested) that would be more specific.

From the chat I had with Pawl concerning the pronunciation of the oe-forms he told me that, in the beginning, he had thought about differenciating the forms even further but decided against it because there were already so many ;D

Tìtstewan

It's said more than one times that *moeng doesn't exist. :)
But, do we have a word for "trio"?

-| 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. |-

Taronyu Leleioae

Quote from: Tìtstewan on September 11, 2013, 10:22:01 AM
It's said more than one times that *moeng doesn't exist. :)
But, do we have a word for "trio"?

We need to actually verify this for NiaN rewrite then.
But in v2.8 on p5, for a trial there is pxoe, pxoeng...  (3 of us exclusive, 3 of us/you inclusive)

Tìtstewan

I know them.
Does "trio" hasn't an other meaning too? ???

-| 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. |-

Plumps


Blue Elf

Quote from: Taronyu Leleioae on September 11, 2013, 10:34:04 AM
Quote from: Tìtstewan on September 11, 2013, 10:22:01 AM
It's said more than one times that *moeng doesn't exist. :)
But, do we have a word for "trio"?

We need to actually verify this for NiaN rewrite then.
But in v2.8 on p5, for a trial there is pxoe, pxoeng...  (3 of us exclusive, 3 of us/you inclusive)
Yes but... let's think together:
moe = me + another person, but not the listener (exclusive) = 2 people altogether
oeng = me + you (listener, inclusive) = 2 people altogether

pxoe = me + two another persons, but not the listener (exclusive) = 3 people altogether
pxoeng = me + another person + you (listener, inclusive) = 3 people altogether

ayoe = me + more than two another persons, but not the listener (exclusive) = 4 or more people altogether
ayoeng/awnga = me + more than two another persons + you (listener, inclusive) = 4 or more people altogether

Now, what *moeng would mean?
moe = me + another person + you (listener, inclusive) = 3 people - it would be another trial, which we already have....
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Ateyo

Wjat i understand is that moe is me and one other person but not you. Moeng is unnecessary because there is only one way to have a 2 person "we". Oeng already insinuates two people, adding M is just redundant

eejmensenikbenhet

Quote from: Blue Elf on September 11, 2013, 03:06:29 PM
[...]
Yes but... let's think together:
moe = me + another person, but not the listener (exclusive) = 2 people altogether
oeng = me + you (listener, inclusive) = 2 people altogether


pxoe = me + two another persons, but not the listener (exclusive) = 3 people altogether
pxoeng = me + another person + you (listener, inclusive) = 3 people altogether

ayoe = me + more than two another persons, but not the listener (exclusive) = 4 or more people altogether
ayoeng/awnga = me + more than two another persons + you (listener, inclusive) = 4 or more people altogether

Now, what *moeng would mean?
moe = me + another person + you (listener, inclusive) = 3 people - it would be another trial, which we already have....

I guess I'm the only one seeing the counterintuïtive deduction here?
To me adding together pxoe (me + 2 others) and nga (you) to form pxoeng (me + two others + you) seems the most logical thing to do.

Look at what we do with the ay- form:
ayoe (4 or more people including me) + nga (you) = ayoeng/awnga (4 or more people including me + you).
Why wouldn't this work for the me- and pxe- forms?

So, in your words, me + another person + you = 3 people, comes to me as:
moe (me + another person) + nga (you) = moeng (me + another person + you)...

Blue Elf

Yes, it gives sense, but it was decided as it is. Remember, in languages often logic does not work (think of idioms....)
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tìtstewan

#17
Why do I feel this topic would fit better in the pronoun guide?

As I understood the concept of the pronouns:
Quote from: eejmensenikbenhet on September 11, 2013, 07:12:10 PM
Look at what we do with the ay- form:
ayoe (4 or more people including me) + nga (you) = ayoeng/awnga (4 or more people including me + you).
Why wouldn't this work for the me- and pxe- forms?
moe = oe (1) + another person (1) = 2 = me + oe (2 persons in total) = moe
pxoe = oe (1) + another person (1) + another person (1) = 3 = pxe + oe (3 persons in total) = pxoe
ayoe = oe (1) + another persons (X) = ay + oe (1 + X persons total) = ayoe

Quote from: eejmensenikbenhet on September 11, 2013, 07:12:10 PM
So, in your words, me + another person + you = 3 people, comes to me as:
moe (me + another person) + nga (you) = moeng (me + another person + you)...
oeng = oe (1) + nga (1) = 2 = oe + nga (2 persons in total) = oeng <-- because this word has already 2 persons, it would be make no sense to add me. It would be "me + oeng" - "two two of we"...?!?
pxoeng = oe (1) + another person (1) + nga (1) = 3 = pxe + oe + nga (3 persons in total) = pxoeng
ayoeng = oe (1) + nga (1) + another persons (X) = 2 + X = ay + oe + nga (2  + X persons in total) = ayoeng

Edit: changed the number in the brackets for better understanding....

-| 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 12, 2013, 07:40:51 AM
Why do I feel this topic would fit better in the pronoun guide?

As I understood the concept of the pronouns:
Quote from: eejmensenikbenhet on September 11, 2013, 07:12:10 PM
Look at what we do with the ay- form:
ayoe (4 or more people including me) + nga (you) = ayoeng/awnga (4 or more people including me + you).
Why wouldn't this work for the me- and pxe- forms?
moe = oe (1) + another person (2) = 2 = me + oe (2 persons in total) = moe
pxoe = oe (1) + another person (2) + another person (3) = 3 = pxe + oe (3 persons in total) = pxoe
ayoe = oe (1) + another persons (X) = ay + oe (1 + X persons total) = ayoe

Quote from: eejmensenikbenhet on September 11, 2013, 07:12:10 PM
So, in your words, me + another person + you = 3 people, comes to me as:
moe (me + another person) + nga (you) = moeng (me + another person + you)...
oeng = oe (1) + nga (2) = 2 = oe + nga (2 persons in total) = oeng <-- because this word has already 2 persons, it would be make no sense to add me. It would be "me + oeng" - "two two of we"...?!?
pxoeng = oe (1) + another person (2) + nga (3) = 3 = pxe + oe + nga (3 persons in total) = pxoeng
ayoeng = oe (1) + nga (2) + another persons (X) = 2 + X = ay + oe + nga (2  + X persons in total) = ayoeng

This makes total sense.

The plural prefix used should reflect the total amount of people present.

oe: one person
moe: two people
pxoe: three people
ayoe: four+ people (or unknown general plural amount)

oeng: two people
pxoeng: three people
ayoeng: four+ people (or unknown general plural amount)

That way the number of people total is consistent with the plural prefix. Otherwise (if *moeng existed)

oeng: two people
moeng: three people?? but me+ means two...???
pxoeng: three people
ayoeng: four people

... etc.

Tìtstewan

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

-| 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. |-