--Oe ralp<am>eng
Ngaytxoa? Oe omum (set) oe-ru tìkxey l<am>u slä ke lu klltseng ni-fi'u lu r<1>alp<2>eng? Tafral ke lu r<am>alpeng? P<ìrm>awn 
Tse, oe-l nume 'uo-ti a oe srekrr ke <am>omum
Oe (oel?) tslam si ke "-tia" slä oe (oel?) fpil oe (oel?) tslam 
Ke kawnga Numeyu. Sìltsama numeyu. Nga nì'aw nerume. ayoeng nìwotx nerume nì'aw.
Oe (oel?) tslam ma Karyu, Irayo.
Keke
okay
ralpeng is a compound word, and the verb half of a compound word gets the infix. peng is the verb. tahts why its ralp<0><1><2>eng just like yomtìng. tìng is the verb and gets the infix.
!!!
did you guys look at l and t endings? they travel in pairs. L verbs T. Thats IT. so when a subject verbs an object, inNa'vi it is subject-ìl verb object-it.
otherwise you dont know what is doing the verb to what.
oel ngati kame. heard of this? why isnt it oe nga kame, or oeti ngal kame? l and t here are telling who is seeing who. does that help?
Oel omum fì'ut. I konw this thing. oeti omum fi'ul. this thing knows me. notice swapping the markers l and t completely reverses the meaning, regardless of word order. and not even having any markers is ambiguous which situation you are talking about:
oe yom syuve. I eat food, or food eats me?? we dont know unless you mark accordingly with l and t endings.
I think I understand:
oel fpìl futa oe tslam
i think thisthing:-->I understand
good to see that things are kinda fitting together...