Re: ok, the iv infix is killing me, help please ;D

[Nyx]

Don't worry, if this hasn't confused you at some point, I don't think you're human

<iv> covers things like wishes and hopes, for example '<iv>ong na'vi means may na'vi bloom or let na'vi bloom. And your nga k<iv>ä (which i think is what you were going for) would be may you go.

The reason it should be nga ke tsun pivlltxe nìna'vi srak? is that tsun is a modal verb (there are a few more of those: new, zene, kin), and verbs used with a modal verb take the <iv> infix.

[Eyamsiyu]

Don't worry, if this hasn't confused you at some point, I don't think you're human

Of course not: it means you're Na'vi!

I will say nothing else, because I think that Ikranari has it.

['Oma Tirea]

Missed one: the <iv> infix can also equate roughly to the "would" in English.

I was once confused by it, too (that and the topical, which is somehow still being figured out).

Set oe tsun tslivam

[Muzer]

<iv> (subjunctive infix) is used for a LOT in Na'vi.

* Wishes - the subjunctive is still just holding on for dear life in English, existing only in such phrases as "Long live the king" or "God bless you" (those are neither a command, nor a statement).
* Commands (optionally, no difference between using subjunctive and not)
* Some conjunctions (eg fte, see dictionary) make the verb after the conjunction subjunctive. Some ones that aren't marked in the dictionary can optionally take it (eg txo).
** Sometimes this makes it appear to look like the conditional tense (the "would/were" tense in English), though I don't believe it can be used like this on its own. For example, txo nga tivaron, "if you were to hunt".
* Modal verbs make the non-modal verb in the clause subjunctive

There might be more I've stupidly forgotten

[Nyx]

Oh and also the negative versions like fteke and zenke, since they are basically fte and zene combined with ke

[Skxawng]

Additionally, it doesn't always have to be used unless there is a modal verb in the clause, even in commands.

for example, 'eytukan says 'Ayfo yìm' ("Bind them") in the movie, as well as 'eko! (attack!)

but if you use a modal verb, you must put in the subjunctive infix!

[Plumps]

for example, 'eytukan says 'Ayfo yìm' ("Bind them")

Just for correctness' sake ... it's mefoti yìm "bind those two" but of course, your grammatical point is correct. For commands, it's either the basic* form of the verb or with ‹iv›

[Payä Tìrol]

For commands: Don't worry about it, either use it or don't, it should be correct either way. Just keep in mind that a verb with <iv> may occasionally be a command.

Always use <iv> after new, zene/zenke, tsun, fmi, kin, and maybe some others.

Always use <iv> in a clause after stuff like fte/fteke, tsnì, and maybe some others.

Use <iv> if the verb is not a factual statement.

[Skxawng]

A factual statement is a statment that is true.  (a fact)
Oe lu tutan (I am a man)

While running around the room screeching with arms extended 'in flight:'
Oe livu ikran (I am an ikran)


A clause is also called a phrase, basically its just a section of a sentence, that contains a Subject, and a Predicate.

The subject is ... just exactly that, the subject of the sentence, and a predicate modifies a subject, so in the following sentence:

George is red.

Red is modifying George, and is therefore the predicate, while George, being modified, is the subject.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

A factual statement is something you say that is literally true e.g. "water is wet", a counterfactual statement is something that isn't or might not be true e.g. "I might have pizza for Dinner", for counterfactual statements you use <iv> (although you drop it for effect with metaphors or sarcasm).

A clause is a bit more complicated. Consider the long(ish) sentence:

tsun oe ngahu pivängkxo a fì'u prrte' lu oer

There are three verbs here, "tsun", "p<iv>ängkxo" (which takes <iv> because it follows a modal verb, here "tsun") and "lu" , each of which has a clause associated with it.

A clause can contain anything from a verb to a verb with a subject, two objects, a ton of adpositional phrases (nouns added in using adpositions like ro+, mì+ etc.) and a few adverbs.

Generally a sentence has a tree like structure with different clauses embedded within each other so the sentence I wrote above looks like this when split into clauses:

{{tsun oe {ngahu pivängkxo} a} fì'u prrte' lu oer}

Here, the main clause that all the other ones come from (called the matrix clause) is "fì'u prrte' lu oer".

We then have an attributive clause which is an attribute of/describes the noun fì'u in the matrix clause. This clause is "tsun oe".

Lastly we have a modal clause which follows the modal verb, this is "ngahu pivängkxo" (it's possible to argue that this isn't a separate clause, but it makes some other grammar easier to explain if you consider it as one).

Each of these clauses contains a verb, this is because a clause must contain a verb (or at least an implied verb).

The "fì'u prrte' lu oer" contains three other elements, the subject (fì'u), the indirect object (oer) and a predicative adjective (prrte').

"tsun oe" contains only one other element, the subject "oe".

"ngahu pivängkxo" contains only one other element as well and that is an adpositional phrase, "ngahu".

A clause is formed around a verb and its arguments and, in general, there is a bubble around each clause so that elements outside it cannot affect those inside (for example, the ergative case is used for subjects if there is an accusative. If that accusative is in a different clause however, the 'bubble effect' stops the accusative from affecting the subject and so it remains in the nominative e.g. in "new oe tivaron yerikit" there is a subject and accusative so you might think that oe should be oel, but because of the bubble affect the accusative on yerik stops oe needing to be ergative).

[kewnya txamew'itan]

The na'vi wouldn't make a distinction between those two senses, both would be set nga kivä.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I think so.

[Payä Tìrol]

Oe tsivun is for a situation where you are not sure if you are able to or not, so it can mean anything like: "I may be able to", "May I be able to", or others, depending on context.

Oe zene tsivun means, "I must be able to". In this case, because zene is being used to modify tsun, tsun takes the <iv> infix.

[Skxawng]

Oe tsun = I can

Oe tsivun = I am able

Oe zene tsivun = I must be able to

A lot of what it means would probably be dependant on the words around it, as well as the tone.   Also, in a lot of your translations you're adding verbs that aren't there.

For example, "I hope that I will be able to"  -- "hope" would be sìlpey, and is its own clause:

oel sìlpey tsnì oe tsiyevun  (future tense subjunctive used here, <iyev>)
I hope that I will be able to

Additionally, when you use 'might' where there's a lot of uncertainty using <ats> would be appropriate. Remember, this is a 2nd position infix, so ...

oe tsivatsun
I might be able to

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Ma skxawng, that's not entirely accurate. "I can" and "I am able" are interchangeable in English (indeed, the verb "can" has no future tense formations but "to be able" does and is used in those contexts), unlike tsun and tsivun in na'vi. Tsivun is closer to "could" or "would be able to".

Also, sìlpey takes tsnì not futa.

As for "might", I'm not sure <ats> is appropriate, I'd probably still use <iv> as a generic counterfactual and then use <ats> if I am following a thought process from which I conclude that I am able (and I wouldn't use <iv> then) so: "oe ts<iv>un" could mean "I might be able" and "oe ts<ats>un" could mean "following some thought process I have concluded that I am/should be able to"/"I think I should be able to".

And ma ikranari, "oe tsivun" cannot mean "I must be able to" because for it to mean that there would have to be a zene before it (so your example, "oe zene tsivun" is correct for "I must be able to", "oe tsivun" is not). Also, the only context I can think of where you'd say "I must be able to" would actually use <ats> instead of "oe zene" + <iv> because it refers to an inferred conclusion. If you were looking for an example of two modal verbs being used together, "oe new tsivun" might be a better example to consider (all the same grammar applies as I (and skxawng) mentioned, it's just less ambiguous).

[Skxawng]

hum. So then Tsivatsun would then be "I could/would/might be able to (I think)"

Thanks for the corrections

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I'd probably translate it as "I think I could" as opposed to "I think I can". We all need corrections sometimes.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

If you were looking for an example of two modal verbs being used together, "oe new tsivun" might be a better example to consider (all the same grammar applies as I (and skxawng) mentioned, it's just less ambiguous).

oe new tsivun is an interesting construction. To me, it kind of means 'I want can', which is kind of odd. (There is an example in the movie, from Jake's 'Toruk Makto' speech of tsat new tsun mivunge that translates out to 'that want can have'. This suggests to me that modal verbs can be stacked without the <iv> infix having to show up until the endiing non-modal verb.) Something tells me that oe nivew tsivun might be better, as it means (at least to me, and I don't always quite catch the meaning right) 'I'd like to have'.

[Payä Tìrol]

A better translation would be to use "to be able to", so it becomes "I want to be able to".

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Ma 'eylan ayfalulukanä, you've got the clause boundaries the wrong way round, the lines are actually:

fpole' sawtutel 'upxaret ayoeri tsat new tsun mivunge.

For this to work grammatically (and fit the translation better), it would have to be:

{fpole' sawtutel 'upxaret ayoeri} {(sawtutel) tsat new} {tsun {(sawtutel) (tsat) mivunge}}.

It's not a modal use of new, just a transitive one. The "sawtutel" is implied by the previous clause so is omitted (same with the final clause) as is "tsat" in the final clause. Because of this, an accurate translation would be more like "the sky people have sent us a message. They want it, they can take it"



oe new tsivun isn't so much "I want can" which doesn't work (mainly because can isn't the infinitive form, it would be like saying "he wants has"), an accurate translation would be "I want to be able", remember that can = to be able except that "to be able" can be applied in more tenses. As a translation for tsun, "to be able" is arguably better because tsun, like "to be able" can be applied in all the tenses/aspects etc. that are in its language.