Learn Na'vi > Prefixes, Infixes and Suffixes

-ol- vs -arm- for past states

(1/2) > >>

Kame Ayyo’koti:
There is a sentence I've studied that describes the previous state of a person in this way:

Hìkrro mefo kakpam larmu mawkrra pxolor kunsìp.
The two of them were deaf for a short time after the gunship exploded.
SpoilerHìkrr-o me-fo kakpam l<arm>u mawkrra px<ol>or kunsìp.
The two of them were deaf for a short time after the gunship exploded.
(I've been forgetting to do this in the beginner section. :-[)
This sentence describes a previous state the people were in, as opposed to an event that occured to them (such as "they became deaf" I suppose). I've thought about this and the use of <ol>, which packages an event as a whole that occured.

Would it be correct to say we should use <arm> or <ìrm> when speaking of past states?
Oe lìrmu ngeyn...
I was (just) tired (not long ago)...

Oeyä ikran larmu lom.
My Ikran was missing.
SpoilerOe l<ìrm>u ngeyn...
I was (just) tired (not long ago)...

Oe-yä ikran l<arm>u lom.
My Ikran was missing.

Tirea Aean:
What makes this a state is the fact you used lu, I think. And there's nothing special about it when it comes to using infixes with it so I'd say it is correct to say what you did.

The whole point of the aspects ol and er are to mark whether the action is completed (a snapshot or package as you called it) or is ongoing and incomplete. The idea with the tenses am ìm (present tense is just the root verb with no tense marking) ìy and ay is that they are simply for locating the action in Time. The compound in fixes just combine these ideas together.

I guess I say this... Remember aspect is more commonly marked than tense. And I guess make your choice of infix based on when the action occurred and whether or not it's complete or ongoing. See Horen Lì'fyayä leNa'vi page 41 Chapter 6.7 for info on tense and aspect.

One nit note: ngeyn and other emotions like ohakx, väng, etc. are used with 'efu instead of lu. You feel tired, instead of be tired in Na'vi. :)

Plumps:

--- Quote from: Kame Ayyo'koti on June 14, 2014, 10:33:40 pm ---Hìkrro mefo kakpam larmu mawkrra pxolor kunsìp.
The two of them were deaf for a short time after the gunship exploded.
--- End quote ---

Interesting titbit about that sentence… We had a little discussion in the LEP when we prepared the document for submission to K. Pawl. First it was Mefo kakpam leru hìkrro mawkrra pxolor sawtuteyä ’awm. We changed it to lolu and back to leru in the cause of the process. It was submitted as leru. Pawl decided then to change it further to larmu. His reasoning behind that is of course not clear but I would interpret that as:
     - the explosion of the gunship is a finished action, it doesn’t matter to mark it for tense.
     - the time and duration/period of the deafness is more important, so it gets marked for tense and aspect.

That contradicts a bit my understanding so far for the co-operation of ‹er› and ‹ol› as frame narrative and selected events, as in
     Oel hu Txewì trram na’rìngit tarmok, tsole’a syeptutet atsawl frato mì sìrey.
     “Yesterday, when I was with Txewì in the forest, I saw the biggest person trapper in my life.”
     Spoilert‹a‹r›m›ok marks the frame narrative in the past that goes on for a while (which I find no better way to translate as “while …”), in which ts‹ol›e’a happens as a distinct event within that narrative.
but I guess the finished action is disconnected from the insident of deafness in this sentence.

Tìtstewan:
Some points were mentioned in this thread Tense/aspect usage nìNa’vi.

Oe mllte hu Tirea sì Plumps. :)


--- Quote from: Plumps on June 15, 2014, 06:08:40 am ---
--- Quote from: Kame Ayyo'koti on June 14, 2014, 10:33:40 pm ---Hìkrro mefo kakpam larmu mawkrra pxolor kunsìp.
The two of them were deaf for a short time after the gunship exploded.
--- End quote ---

Interesting titbit about that sentence… We had a little discussion in the LEP when we prepared the document for submission to K. Pawl. First it was Mefo kakpam leru hìkrro mawkrra pxolor sawtuteyä ’awm. We changed it to lolu and back to leru in the cause of the process. It was submitted as leru. Pawl decided then to change it further to larmu. His reasoning behind that is of course not clear but I would interpret that as:
     - the explosion of the gunship is a finished action, it doesn’t matter to mark it for tense.
     - the time and duration/period of the deafness is more important, so it gets marked for tense and aspect.
--- End quote ---
I was going to mention this stuff too.

As for LEP,
I think, one day, we should create a special document with tense/aspect thing and send it to Pawl. Not as regular LEP stuff, rather as a well-structured doc about tense and aspects. So that we have clarity about all these tense and aspects things and their correct use in (complex) sentences and stories.
We still waiting for that, kefyak? :)

Kemaweyan:
There are completely different meanings. -ol- means present state of completeness, -arm- - process of action in the past. For me more difficult is to explain the difference between -ol- and -am- because in Russian both are one grammatical form.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version