"ing" help please

[Pxelsam]

Hi quick question,
Reading through the Na'vi in a nut shell, it shows "er" means "ing" teraron=hunting, but when I look in the dictionary hunting is tìtusaron may I ask how/why?

Thanks in advance.

By the way, I'm a complete novice in Na'vi and linguistic terminology

_Pxelsam

[Payä Tìrol]

T<er>aron is "hunting" used as a verb: "I am hunting sturmbeest" Oel teraron aysalioangit
Tì-t<us>aron is "hunting" used as a noun: "Hunting is difficult" Tìsusaron lu ngäzìk

[Kemaweyan]

-er- means imperfective aspect:

  Oe teraron = I'm hunting.

But gerund "hunting" should be tìtusaron - it's noun that means process.

[Pxelsam]

ah right ok, thanks

[omängum fra'uti]

Tusaron
Tìtusaron
Teraron

All three would be translated as "Hunting" in English but they would be used differently.

Palulukan atusaron lu lehrrap
A hunting thanator is dangerous

Tìtusaron tsranten
Hunting is important

Fnivu nìtxan! Oel wäpìtit teraron.
Be very very quiet, I'm hunting rabbits.

['Oma Tirea]

In simplest terms...

Tusaron
Tìtusaron
Teraron

All three would be translated as "Hunting" in English but they would be used differently.

Sran, English can disappoint sometimes...

[kewnya txamew'itan]

In simplest terms...

Tusaron
Tìtusaron
Teraron

All three would be translated as "Hunting" in English but they would be used differently.

Sran, English can disappoint sometimes...

This problem also arises with -ed which could be:

tolaron
tawnaron
taron (with a word order change)
a perfect form were one to exist in na'vi (which it doesn't although the closest would be tamaron)

so:

tolaron = I hunted
tawnaron = the hunted yerik
taron = the yerik is hunted by Jake
tamaron = I hunted or I have hunted (to a lesser extent this could apply to tolaron as well)

For a lot of these verb forms it is unhelpful to think in terms of English, instead think in terms of the action, as wm.annis says, translate the meaning not the words.

[Pxelsam]

In simplest terms...

Tusaron
Tìtusaron
Teraron

All three would be translated as "Hunting" in English but they would be used differently.

Sran, English can disappoint sometimes...

Oh right, that makes sence now, thanks.

The "ed" I found rather easy to pick up somehow, I can really see where your coming from by translating the meanings rather than the words.

Thanks

_Pxelsam

['Oma Tirea]

tolaron = I hunted
tawnaron = the hunted yerik
taron = the yerik is hunted by Jake
tamaron = I hunted or I have hunted (to a lesser extent this could apply to tolaron as well)

Another good point, but somehow I don't quite see how "taron" is "hunted" in that sentence.  "Tolaron" or "tamaron" would seem to fit a bit better.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

tolaron = I hunted
tawnaron = the hunted yerik
taron = the yerik is hunted by Jake
tamaron = I hunted or I have hunted (to a lesser extent this could apply to tolaron as well)

Another good point, but somehow I don't quite see how "taron" is "hunted" in that sentence.  "Tolaron" or "tamaron" would seem to fit a bit better.

Consider the simple sentence yerikit taron yeykl  Kind of a strange word order, but the case markers on the nouns put everything in their place. 'hunted' would not be a bad word choice for taron if you were translating this verbatim into English.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

tolaron = I hunted
tawnaron = the hunted yerik
taron = the yerik is hunted by Jake
tamaron = I hunted or I have hunted (to a lesser extent this could apply to tolaron as well)

Another good point, but somehow I don't quite see how "taron" is "hunted" in that sentence.  "Tolaron" or "tamaron" would seem to fit a bit better.

An English Passive for uses the "hunted" form e.g. the yerik is hunted by Jake whereas na'vi, not having a passive, uses the plain form (taron) and probably a word order shift.

[omängum fra'uti]

Word order is not really a substitute for the passive.

Pol yerikit taron
Pol taron yerikit
Taron pol yerikit
Yerikit pol taron
Yerikit taron pol
Taron yerikit pol

All six mean the same thing...  He/she hunt(hunts, hunted, etc) yerik.  In some cases, it MIGHT carry a similar shift of focus that the English passive carries, but it would be incorrect to declare it as a passive translation.

Also, the unmarked-ness of the verb has nothing to do with it in this case.  Consider the following exchanges.

1. Kempe soli nga trram?
2. Taron. (Tolaron)
1. What did you do yesterday?
2. I hunted.

1. Kempe seri nga krr a ngal Neytirit tsole'a trram?
2. Taron. (Teraron)
1. What were you doing when you saw Neytiri yesterday?
2. I was hunting.

Both (Correctly) use the unmarked "taron" verb.  They could use the form given in parenthesis, but it would probably be odd to do so in the case where it is perfectly clear.  Yet the English translations of one gives the -ing form while the other gives the -ed form, as you would expect from the implied Na'vi verb form.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

All six mean the same thing...  He/she hunt(hunts, hunted, etc) yerik.  In some cases, it MIGHT carry a similar shift of focus that the English passive carries, but it would be incorrect to declare it as a passive translation.

Also, the unmarked-ness of the verb has nothing to do with it in this case.  Consider the following exchanges.

I didn't post very clearly. What I meant was that, an English passive (whilst it has no direct translation) would best be translated with an otherwise unmarked form of the verb, possibly with word order shifts to emphasise the object (we've had implicit confirmation that word order does affect which argument is emphasised so, whilst there is no passive, a sentence could adopt a pseudo-passive structure where the object is emphasised more than the subject).

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Also, the unmarked-ness of the verb has nothing to do with it in this case.  Consider the following exchanges.

1. Kempe soli nga trram?
2. Taron. (Tolaron)
1. What did you do yesterday?
2. I hunted.

1. Kempe seri nga krr a ngal Neytirit tsole'a trram?
2. Taron. (Teraron)
1. What were you doing when you saw Neytiri yesterday?
2. I was hunting.

Both (Correctly) use the unmarked "taron" verb.  They could use the form given in parenthesis, but it would probably be odd to do so in the case where it is perfectly clear.  Yet the English translations of one gives the -ing form while the other gives the -ed form, as you would expect from the implied Na'vi verb form.

Am I taking it that in a case like this (for instance in this case, after an interrogative), si can be used as a normal verb?

[omängum fra'uti]

I didn't post very clearly. What I meant was that, an English passive (whilst it has no direct translation) would best be translated with an otherwise unmarked form of the verb, possibly with word order shifts to emphasise the object (we've had implicit confirmation that word order does affect which argument is emphasised so, whilst there is no passive, a sentence could adopt a pseudo-passive structure where the object is emphasised more than the subject).

I used to tell people that, but Frommer personally smacked me down for it.
http://forum.learnnavi.org/language-updates/a-few-quickies-from-frommer/
It is really incorrect to call any specific word order as a passive voice.  The marking of the verb really has nothing to do with it.  Unmarked in the case you are thinking of is, in fact, merely an implicit perfective aspect.  (Remember, unmarked doesn't mean it doesn't have tense or aspect, just that it was obvious or unnecessary to state it specifically.)

Am I taking it that in a case like this (for instance in this case, after an interrogative), si can be used as a normal verb?

Define "normal verb"...  There si is acting exactly as it always does, as an auxiliary verb, here an auxiliary to "kem".

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I didn't post very clearly. What I meant was that, an English passive (whilst it has no direct translation) would best be translated with an otherwise unmarked form of the verb, possibly with word order shifts to emphasise the object (we've had implicit confirmation that word order does affect which argument is emphasised so, whilst there is no passive, a sentence could adopt a pseudo-passive structure where the object is emphasised more than the subject).

I used to tell people that, but Frommer personally smacked me down for it.
http://forum.learnnavi.org/language-updates/a-few-quickies-from-frommer/
It is really incorrect to call any specific word order as a passive voice.  The marking of the verb really has nothing to do with it.  Unmarked in the case you are thinking of is, in fact, merely an implicit perfective aspect.  (Remember, unmarked doesn't mean it doesn't have tense or aspect, just that it was obvious or unnecessary to state it specifically.)

Frommer specifically smacked down OSV, but he has said things about the last place carrying "the punch", even though it wouldn't be a passive, it should therefore be possible to promote the object more than would be normal (possibly above the subject) in a similar manner to a passive (although whether or not it would be common to do so is another matter).

And the case I'm thinking of is entirely aspect-less, if anything it would be imperfective.

[omängum fra'uti]

Frommer specifically smacked down OSV, but he has said things about the last place carrying "the punch", even though it wouldn't be a passive, it should therefore be possible to promote the object more than would be normal (possibly above the subject) in a similar manner to a passive (although whether or not it would be common to do so is another matter).

And the case I'm thinking of is entirely aspect-less, if anything it would be imperfective.

But the point of this discussion is how it would be translated, and saying it would be translated as the passive voice in English is wrong.

What this all boils down to is the old "Translate the meaning, not the words".  It is certainly possible to translate the passive voice into Na'vi and carry a similar meaning, but that does not mean it is a passive voice in Na'vi, just a similar meaning.

If, for example, you gave me to translate "Lu hola yerik, talun yerikit sutel apxay tolaron", I would translate it as "There are few hexapods, because hexapods are hunted by many people."  Not because of the word order, because it sounds odd to say it the other way in English, and the passive voice there keeps the focus on the hexapods, like it was in Na'vi.  But if you asked me to translate "Lu nawma wutso, talun yerikit sutel apxay tolaron", I would be more inclined to translate that to "It was a great feast, because many people hunted hexapod."  There the hexapod is not so much the focus of the sentence, so in English I give the normal order.  In this case, perhaps some subtle meaning given by the Na'vi word order is lost in translation, but translating it as the passive would unduly shift the focus.

The original statement was...

taron = the yerik is hunted by Jake

Which is a bit silly to say to begin with, because taron is, depending on context, hunt, hunts, hunting, hunted, will hunt, etc...

[kewnya txamew'itan]

That was a very poor choice of wording on my part.

I had meant that working backwards from English, one could end up with "taron" being the translation of "hunted" although that certainly was not clear from my original post.