<iv> and "a" Constructs?

[nìTsìng Lekinama Yayo]

Okay, there's something that's been bothering me about the <iv> infix for quite some time now.

Ever since I started making complex sentences in Na'vi, I've been under the possibly false impression that if you have a verb inside an "a" construct (such as Tutan a t(iv?)aron oeyä ikran lu kawng), including things such as fwa, futa, furia, tsata, ect., it always needs a subjunctive infix. My question is; is this true or not? Is it only true in some cases? Why?

Irayo!

[Carborundum]

The subjunctive infix, <iv>, is used for a lot of things in na'vi.

1. It is used to express the optative mood, which is used to indicate hopes and wishes.
The <iv> in "tivìran po ayoekip" from the movie is of this type¹, as is the <ìyev> in kìyevame.
If you have listened to the listening comprehension Frommer posted on his blog a while ago, you might have noticed that he opens with "oe piveng ayngaru nì'it teri TXewì". This <iv> is also optative.

2. It is used in conditional sentences such as "txo oeyä aylì'umì keyey livu"².

3. It is used to create infinitives³ after modal verbs, as in
   Oe new kivä. 'I want to go.'
   Oe tsun kivä. 'I can go.'
   Oe zene kivä. 'I must go.'

As far as I'm aware, these are the only cases where the subjunctive is applicable.

Edit: Wait, there's one two more:

4. It is used in dependent clauses initiated by tsnì, such as "ätxäle si tsnì livu oheru Uniltaron"⁴.

5. It is used in verbs preceded by fte, for example "Sawtute zera'u fte fol Kelutralti skiva'a"⁵. Also fteke.

This message has been edited over 9000 times

[wm.annis]

I've been under the possibly false impression that if you have a verb inside an "a" construct (such as Tutan a t(iv?)aron oeyä ikran lu kawng), including things such as fwa, futa, furia, tsata, ect., it always needs a subjunctive infix. My question is; is this true or not? Is it only true in some cases?

It is not true.  The only situation we've seen so far where you must use ‹iv› forms with attributive clauses is with futa used with new.

 oe new kivä I want to go.
 oel new futa po kivä I want him to go lit. I want that he go.

Otherwise, the subjunctive is not required with clauses with a.  Some examples from Frommer:

 Ulte omum oel futa tìfyawìntxuri oeyä perey aynga nìwotx. And I know you are all waiting for my guidance. (AMFP)
 Sìlpey oe, layu oeru ye'rìn sìltsana fmawn a tsun oe ayngaru tivìng. I hope I will soon have good news to give you.
 poltxe Neytiril aylì'ut a frakrr 'ok seyä layu oer Neytiri said something I will always remember (Reading in Public)
 Palulukan a teraron lu lehrrap a thanator that is hunting is dangerous (More extracts from various emails)

It's always possible some future constructions with a will come to us which do require ‹iv›, but for now new + futa/a fì'ut is the only one we've seen.

[nìTsìng Lekinama Yayo]

Irayo!    Glad I got that straight.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

It is not true.  The only situation we've seen so far where you must use ‹iv› forms with attributive clauses is with futa used with new.

 oe new kivä I want to go.
 oel new futa po kivä I want him to go lit. I want that he go.

Otherwise, the subjunctive is not required with clauses with a.  Some examples from Frommer:

It's always possible some future constructions with a will come to us which do require ‹iv›, but for now new + futa/a fì'ut is the only one we've seen.

Is there any logical reasoning for this, or is this one of those 'exceptions' that simply have to be remembered?

['Oma Tirea]

It is not true.  The only situation we've seen so far where you must use ‹iv› forms with attributive clauses is with futa used with new.

 oe new kivä I want to go.
 oel new futa po kivä I want him to go lit. I want that he go.

Otherwise, the subjunctive is not required with clauses with a.  Some examples from Frommer:

It's always possible some future constructions with a will come to us which do require ‹iv›, but for now new + futa/a fì'ut is the only one we've seen.

Is there any logical reasoning for this, or is this one of those 'exceptions' that simply have to be remembered?

I would imagine that the <iv> is required here because of the new verb, a modal verb, and that it can even come across the six clause words.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

It is not true.  The only situation we've seen so far where you must use ‹iv› forms with attributive clauses is with futa used with new.

 oe new kivä I want to go.
 oel new futa po kivä I want him to go lit. I want that he go.

Otherwise, the subjunctive is not required with clauses with a.  Some examples from Frommer:

It's always possible some future constructions with a will come to us which do require ‹iv›, but for now new + futa/a
fì'ut is the only one we've seen.

Is there any logical reasoning for this, or is this one of those 'exceptions' that simply have to be remembered?

I would imagine that the <iv> is required here because of the new verb, a modal verb, and that it can even come across the six clause words.

futa was mentioned specifically, as if it did not apply to the other six clause words (it would be nice if it did). That is why I am thinking this is one of those exceptions........ (Na`vi is not so nearly bad as english... or math... or music.)

[omängum fra'uti]

The reason it doesn't apply to the others is because it puts the subordinate in a different role, and it doesn't really make sense.

• Fwa - A subordinate wants something?  I can't really see this making sense ever, except maybe in some odd poetic usages.
• Tsawa - Same thing.  Doesn't really make sense.
• Futa - The subject of wanting, if another clause, must be subjunctive.
• Tsata - This is the same as futa - should there ever be some reason to pick tsata over futa, the subordinate should still be subjunctive.
• Furia - The subordinate clause here isn't really participating directly in the wanting anyway. (Though if you ARE using it that way, I'd imagine it should be subjunctive...  For example, "Furia nga hivum, oe new." which I would translate to English as "That you would leave, I want that.")
• Tsaria - Same as furia.

You can even extend it a little with some other creative orderings...

Oe new yivom
Oel new futa yivom
Oel new fì'ut a yivom
Oe yivom a fì'ut new
All would translate to "I want to eat" and all would require the subjunctive.

BUT - If you want something tangible and the subordinate is just describing it, I'd go out on a limb and say there's no subjunctive there.

Oel new 'uot a lu lor.
I want something which is pretty.
Oel new tutet a tsun oehu tivaron.
I want a person who can hunt with me.

While it looks similar, here the subordinate is just describing the object, not being the object.