Plural prefixes?

Started by pxenari, June 21, 2011, 05:05:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pxenari

Quote from: Carborundum on June 23, 2011, 03:43:06 AM
[Many on Earth would, in fact, say just that. Most languages where dual and trial grammatical numbers exist do this.

It would be far stranger to say "you three are an undefined number of morons", wouldn't you agree?

I guess you are right at that. There are terrestrial languages which use dual and trial, but in most major languages, it wouldn't make grammatical sense, would it?

Quote from: Ftxavanga Txe′lan on June 23, 2011, 03:19:48 PM

But doesn't the absence of prefix imply an invisible ay-? Or have I understood things wrong again? :P

I am pretty sure that only when something is lenited can the prefix be removed, and s is not lenited. Right?
Oeru syaw fko Taronyu

(literally, my name is Hunter)

Kamean

Yes. This is lenition table.

px, tx, kx → p, t, k respectively
p→f
t, ts → s
k→h
' → ø (vanishes)
Tse'a ngal ke'ut a krr fra'uti kame.


Blue Elf

Quote from: Ftxavanga Txe′lan on June 23, 2011, 10:06:19 AM
True! I tend to think that infixes include prefixes and suffixes, but that's false, right?
Infixes doesn't include anything, but infixes + prefixes + sufixes = afixes (not sure if 'f' should doubled or not (lazy to check it :)))
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tirea Aean

Quote from: Blue Elf on June 25, 2011, 04:19:44 PM
Quote from: Ftxavanga Txe′lan on June 23, 2011, 10:06:19 AM
True! I tend to think that infixes include prefixes and suffixes, but that's false, right?
Infixes doesn't include anything, but infixes + prefixes + sufixes = afixes (not sure if 'f' should doubled or not (lazy to check it :)))

indeed! (about the f doubles too)

infix: the thing you put inside a na'vi verb (literally why its called that)
prefix: the thing you put on the beginning of a word
suffix: the thing you put on the end of a word

the group of word-altering particles which all these belong to: affix

Ftxavanga Txe′lan

Oh wow, it all makes sense now! :D

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: pxenari on June 23, 2011, 04:04:16 PM
Quote from: Carborundum on June 23, 2011, 03:43:06 AM
[Many on Earth would, in fact, say just that. Most languages where dual and trial grammatical numbers exist do this.

It would be far stranger to say "you three are an undefined number of morons", wouldn't you agree?

I guess you are right at that. There are terrestrial languages which use dual and trial, but in most major languages, it wouldn't make grammatical sense, would it?
That's not really a fair comparison, because those "major languages" don't have dual or trial forms of plurality, just singular and plural forms.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Kä'eng

If we're talking about the correctness of pxenga lu skxawng, you don't need to look to obscure languages to find one where the analogous sentence is incorrect. Even in English, where the only grammatical distinction is singular vs. plural, one says "You three are morons," not *"You three are a moron."
Ma evi, ke'u ke lu prrte' to fwa sim tuteot ayawne.
Slä txo tuteo fmi 'ivampi ngat ro seng, fu nìfya'o, a 'eykefu ngati vä', tsakem ke lu sìltsan.
Tsaw lu ngeyä tokx! Kawtu ke tsun nìmuiä 'ivampi ngat txo ngal ke new tsakemit.
Ha kempe si nga? Nì'awve, nga plltxe san kehe. Tsakrr, ngal tsatsengti hum!

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Some of this explicit marking for plural number might be related to the use of double negation. Its kind of the same principle.

Sometime back, I seem to remember the definition of ay+ could be used for an unspecified or unknown quantity of something that was more than one.

You could also imply members of a group with something like pxenga lu hapxi a pongu a skxawng

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Ngawng

There's a new post on Karyu Pawl's blog basically saying that pxenga lu skxawng would be the correct way to say it. Makes sense to me, because it's not really necessary to specify the number more than once, (as in pxenga lu pxeskxawng, etc) or to have unnecessary plurals everywhere. Melikey to keep it simple :)

So, if number is established somewhere (like in the pronoun), then you don't need to put number prefixes on the other words in the clause...am I interpreting this right?

29.f.australia

Tswusayona Tsamsiyu

yeah... we actually all already saw that. but thanks anyway. :) :)
Nivume Na'vit, fpivìl nìNa'vi, kivame na Na'vi.....
oer fko syaw tswusayona tsamsiyu

Sireayä mokri

Quote from: Ngawng on August 12, 2011, 11:59:06 PM
So, if number is established somewhere (like in the pronoun), then you don't need to put number prefixes on the other words in the clause...am I interpreting this right?

Yes, however you still can do that if you want to be more specific about each item you are referring to.
When the mirror speaks, the reflection lies.

Ngawng

Quote from: Tswusayona Tsamsiyu on August 13, 2011, 03:02:48 AM
yeah... we actually all already saw that. but thanks anyway. :) :)

Sorry

Quote from: Sireayä mokri on August 13, 2011, 08:26:30 AM
Quote from: Ngawng on August 12, 2011, 11:59:06 PM
So, if number is established somewhere (like in the pronoun), then you don't need to put number prefixes on the other words in the clause...am I interpreting this right?

Yes, however you still can do that if you want to be more specific about each item you are referring to.

Cool *thumbs up*

29.f.australia