<ol> in aspect?

Started by pxenari, June 18, 2011, 11:58:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pxenari

  This infix confuses me. In the Na'vi in a nutshell, by NeotrekkerZ, he says at first it is the equivalent of "have verbed" but then he says it is an aspect, and in the examples, it is the same as <am>, or "verbed"  This doesn't make sense
Oeru syaw fko Taronyu

(literally, my name is Hunter)

Kemaweyan

Well.. this infix means that the action already is done. For example: oel nolume lì'fyati leNa'vi - I learned the Na'vi language. It means that I already learned this language and now I know that. But -am- here would mean that I learned it in past (tried to learn), but not necessary that succeed (oel namume lì'fyati leNa'vi).
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

'Oma Tirea

<ol>, <am>, and <alm> can be very tricky to distinguish.  Here's what these three infixes mean conceptually:

<ol>: something has been completed.  It doesn't refer to when it happened.
<am>: something happened in the past.  It doesn't refer to how it happened.
<alm>: something has been completed in the past.  This combines <am> with <ol> and defines when and how something happened.

Think carefully when reading that part of Na'vi in a Nutshell ;)

[img]http://swokaikran.skxawng.lu/sigbar/nwotd.php?p=2b[/img]

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

Srake serar le'Ìnglìsìa lì'fyayä aylì'ut?  Nari si älofoniru rutxe!!

Kemaweyan

Quote from: 'Oma Tirea on June 19, 2011, 12:17:35 AM
<ol>, <am>, and <alm> can be very tricky to distinguish.  Here's what these three infixes mean conceptually:

<ol>: something has been completed.  It doesn't refer to when it happened.
<am>: something happened in the past.  It doesn't refer to how it happened.
<alm>: something has been completed in the past.  This combines <am> with <ol> and defines when and how something happened.

Think carefully when reading that part of Na'vi in a Nutshell ;)

Right. Also if you're talking about the past and it's clear from the context, you can use just -ol- instead of -alm-. It's clear that it happened in the past.
Nìrangal frapo tsirvun pivlltxe nìNa'vi :D

pxenari

So... -alm- is an aspect too?
Oeru syaw fko Taronyu

(literally, my name is Hunter)

wm.annis

Quote from: pxenari on June 21, 2011, 04:04:57 PM
So... -alm- is an aspect too?

That infix combines both aspect and tense.  It's the simplified combination of ‹ol› and ‹am›.

'Oma Tirea

Quote from: Kemaweyan on June 19, 2011, 12:21:42 AM
It's clear that it happened in the past.

Now <ìm> vs. <ìlm>, on the other hand...

[img]http://swokaikran.skxawng.lu/sigbar/nwotd.php?p=2b[/img]

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

Srake serar le'Ìnglìsìa lì'fyayä aylì'ut?  Nari si älofoniru rutxe!!