Author Topic: inclusive prefixes for oe  (Read 2947 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ateyo

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: 1
inclusive prefixes for oe
« on: September 10, 2013, 09:33:11 pm »
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?

Offline Alyara Arati

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 2757
  • nv Eywa'eveng
  • Karma: 127
  • Arati te Nguran Liyanin'ite
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2013, 09:41:26 pm »
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

Offline Tìtstewan

  • LearnNavi Zeykoyu
  • Toruk Makto
  • Eywatsyìp
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10003
  • de Germany
  • Karma: 324
  • Ke lu oeru kea krr krrtalun!
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2013, 09:41:46 pm »
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This book is a bit outdated and I know some members will rewrite it new.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
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 09:45:05 pm by Tìtstewan »

-| Dict-Na'vi.com | Na'viteri Files | FAQ | LM | Puk Pxaw 'Rrta | Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Offline Ateyo

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: 1
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2013, 09:49:45 pm »
Irayo, ma meylan! That makes perfect sense, I didn't think of it that way.

Offline Blue Elf

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5502
  • cz Czech Republic
  • Karma: 112
    • My attempt for blog
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2013, 04:02:34 am »
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)


Offline Tìtstewan

  • LearnNavi Zeykoyu
  • Toruk Makto
  • Eywatsyìp
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10003
  • de Germany
  • Karma: 324
  • Ke lu oeru kea krr krrtalun!
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2013, 04:04:43 am »
Hey cool! I should add this link to the pronoun guide too! - done!
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 04:17:22 am by Tìtstewan »

-| Dict-Na'vi.com | Na'viteri Files | FAQ | LM | Puk Pxaw 'Rrta | Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Offline eejmensenikbenhet

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1028
  • nl Netherlands
  • Karma: 15
    • Ketuwong aNeyn
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2013, 07:15:24 am »
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]
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 07:18:49 am by eejmensenikbenhet »

Offline Tìtstewan

  • LearnNavi Zeykoyu
  • Toruk Makto
  • Eywatsyìp
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10003
  • de Germany
  • Karma: 324
  • Ke lu oeru kea krr krrtalun!
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2013, 08:27:46 am »
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)

      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.

 :)

-| Dict-Na'vi.com | Na'viteri Files | FAQ | LM | Puk Pxaw 'Rrta | Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Offline Plumps

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 6230
  • Karma: 224
  • ’Ivong Na’vi
    • Aylì'uä Ramunong (Pìlok)
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2013, 10:17:08 am »
*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

Offline Tìtstewan

  • LearnNavi Zeykoyu
  • Toruk Makto
  • Eywatsyìp
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10003
  • de Germany
  • Karma: 324
  • Ke lu oeru kea krr krrtalun!
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #9 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"?

-| Dict-Na'vi.com | Na'viteri Files | FAQ | LM | Puk Pxaw 'Rrta | Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Offline Taronyu Leleioae

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Karma: 16
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2013, 10:34:04 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)

Offline Tìtstewan

  • LearnNavi Zeykoyu
  • Toruk Makto
  • Eywatsyìp
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10003
  • de Germany
  • Karma: 324
  • Ke lu oeru kea krr krrtalun!
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2013, 10:39:20 am »
I know them.
Does "trio" hasn't an other meaning too? ???

-| Dict-Na'vi.com | Na'viteri Files | FAQ | LM | Puk Pxaw 'Rrta | Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Offline Plumps

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 6230
  • Karma: 224
  • ’Ivong Na’vi
    • Aylì'uä Ramunong (Pìlok)
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2013, 10:40:58 am »
Not that I know of…

Offline Blue Elf

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5502
  • cz Czech Republic
  • Karma: 112
    • My attempt for blog
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2013, 03:06:29 pm »
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)


Offline Ateyo

  • Ketuwong
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: 1
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2013, 07:01:03 pm »
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

Offline eejmensenikbenhet

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1028
  • nl Netherlands
  • Karma: 15
    • Ketuwong aNeyn
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2013, 07:12:10 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)...

Offline Blue Elf

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5502
  • cz Czech Republic
  • Karma: 112
    • My attempt for blog
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2013, 04:51:23 am »
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)


Offline Tìtstewan

  • LearnNavi Zeykoyu
  • Toruk Makto
  • Eywatsyìp
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10003
  • de Germany
  • Karma: 324
  • Ke lu oeru kea krr krrtalun!
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #17 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:
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

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....
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 10:36:11 pm by Tìtstewan »

-| Dict-Na'vi.com | Na'viteri Files | FAQ | LM | Puk Pxaw 'Rrta | Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Offline Tirea Aean

  • The Blue One
  • Olo'eyktan Anawm
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 9984
  • nv Eywa'eveng
  • Karma: 243
  • Oeri ran lu srung
    • Tirea Aean
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2013, 08:17:40 pm »
Why do I feel this topic would fit better in the pronoun guide?

As I understood the concept of the pronouns:
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

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.

kelku ikranä a hawnventi yom podcast (na'vi-only): https://bit.ly/kelkuikranä
Learn Na'vi at Mo'ara Discord: https://discord.gg/WF6qcmv

Offline Tìtstewan

  • LearnNavi Zeykoyu
  • Toruk Makto
  • Eywatsyìp
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10003
  • de Germany
  • Karma: 324
  • Ke lu oeru kea krr krrtalun!
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: inclusive prefixes for oe
« Reply #19 on: September 14, 2013, 08:19:58 pm »
moeng: three people?? but me+ means two...???  
Nope, it would be four people. :P

-| Dict-Na'vi.com | Na'viteri Files | FAQ | LM | Puk Pxaw 'Rrta | Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

 

Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, LightStorm Entertainment or The Walt Disney Company.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi