Easy way to learn Na'vi--Songs!

[Skyinou]

Hi!
I will try to make me clear.

Okay, so the first line I knew would draw fire--and that is good. I want to get some feedback. In my mind, the Na'vi child singing this with his friends points at himself (like a big-dumb sky person would--ball up your fist and stick out your thumb like you are hitch-hiking--if anyone even remembers what that is) and point at your self with a jerky thumb-jabbing motion while singing "I Tawtute" (instead of I am a human) as it seems to be a greater insult to dumb down the inflection to "I human, or "I stupid sky-demon." That is how I see it---but---if other people think about this and think that is too cruel I am happy to change it to something more eloquent.

Maybe "oeri tawtute" (if it can be used without a verb. )

"oel tolswon => oel tamswon (it's past. perfective too, but that's not the important point here)"

Should I get a new document? I want to make sure the rules I am following are the CURRENT ones (as everything changes so quickly around here). Here is what i am working from (Crash-course-linguistic.pdf):

<IMPV><er> Refers to an incomplete/continuous action. "I am eating."
<PFV><ol> Refers to a completed past action. "I ate."

If "ol" is a perfective as other human languages (that is not certain for now), there is a difference between past and perfective. It's pointing at what is important. If you write a perfective, you point out that the action was in progress, but is finished. If you write a real past tense, it just say there was an action in the past.
It's like the difference between a past and an imperfective past. This is not something you have to say to be understood, but it help. It's a matter of context.
This is somewhat more an human language terme problem than a Na'vi grammar problem actualy.
oel tamaron => you speak about the whole action of you hunting sometime in the past
oel tolaron => you speak about the fact that you finished hunting.
I hunted a deer => past (you would not say: I finished hunting a deer. Well, you can, but in special cases)
I hunted in the forest => perfective, or perfective (Here you can say: I finished hunting) + past (if the other thing you say are past already)
I was hunting => imperfective + past
It is certainly a very little difference for us. But not for languages who have a clear difference between perfective and past tense.
Evenmore if this is a children song. It has to be right, right?  

But of course, it's right only if the "perfective" of Na'vi is the same as ours  

Eywa ngahu!

(If it looks like I'm beeing rude or agressive, please note it has just be a very long time since a realy speak/write in english. I realy appreciate your work!)

[Kiliyä]

Great^^

oel tawtute => oe tawtute (or oe lu tawtute , make more sense, i think)
oel tolswon => oel tamswon (it's past. perfective too, but that's not the important point here)
oel leru vrrtep => oe lu vrrtep ("be a demon" is a fact, not an action being, and "lu" don't ask for ergative: "l" of "oel")
oel tolspang => oel tamspang (even tamspangang if it's possible, i don't know)

Hey, I reread the stuff that was said here, and I think I spotted a mistake... feel free to douse me in kero and light me if I'm wrong!

The verbs tswon (spelt with four Na'vi letters: ts-w-o-n) and tspang (another four-letter word: ts-p-a-ng) both have CCVC forms, that is, they are one syllable words.  I think that the infix should be after the CC bit, like so: tswamon and tspamang.  The infixes definitely don't break up the ts- bit, since that's one sound in Na'vi, not two.

Oh, and @dustywhite: I meant syllables, too, in my previous post.  The line about speaking English had too many syllables, not vowels.  Sorry.

[Skyinou]

Kaltxi
You certainly are right for the verbs!
And definitely easier to say 

[Lehrrap Uniltìranyu]

Yeeeshhhh.

You never quite realise how cruel little kids are until you look back on the nusery rhymes you sang back then...

On the otherhand, this looks good and quite helpful. Irayo

[Kaltxì Palulukan!]

Hi!
I will try to make me clear.

Okay, so the first line I knew would draw fire--and that is good. I want to get some feedback. In my mind, the Na'vi child singing this with his friends points at himself (like a big-dumb sky person would--ball up your fist and stick out your thumb like you are hitch-hiking--if anyone even remembers what that is) and point at your self with a jerky thumb-jabbing motion while singing "I Tawtute" (instead of I am a human) as it seems to be a greater insult to dumb down the inflection to "I human, or "I stupid sky-demon." That is how I see it---but---if other people think about this and think that is too cruel I am happy to change it to something more eloquent.

Maybe "oeri tawtute" (if it can be used without a verb. )

Interesting. I want to go with it, but:

(from the crash course PDF)

Topic Marker (-ri)
The topic marker is used to introduce the topic of the clause, and is somewhat equivalent to (though much more common than) English "as for". It preempts the case of the noun: that is, when a noun is made topical, usually at the beginning of the clause, it takes the -ri suffix.
***This is not a substitute for the possessive case. Instead it is used to gather focus from a larger clause onto a single entity.
E.g. The play was not enjoyed by anyone.
As for John, the play was not enjoyable.
Na'Vi: tukru lu lehrrap.
spear is dangerous
,,The spear is dangerous.‟
Oe-ri tukru lu lehrrap
I-TOP spear is dangerous
,,For me, the spear is dangerous‟ or since it focuses on ,,oe‟, it would be most correct to interpret it as ,,My spear is dangerous‟ because the topic is "I" and I am taking about a spear being dangerous.

Let me keep looking into this. I thank you sincerely for the effort and thought. You may be correct.

As to the rest. I am working from the (approved?) help documents from LN, so I am really in the dark. If the document I am working from is incorrect, then we are all in trouble

I try to stay current with the new documents, but there are so many, and they are all over the place (psychologically), so it is a bit difficult. One person says "say it this way," and someone else says "say it that way." I am okay with this, but in the end who do I follow? Also: "perfective" and "imperfective" are a complete mystery to me.

just to be clear: Thank you everyone for this great help. I am confused, and becoming more confused. Hopefully I am the only one who is confused, as it is my goal to help new people NOT be as confused as I am by all of these changing grammar rules. Just as soon as I think I have got this down it changes, or someone tells me that is has changed.

Do you kame this? Do you really (get inside it and) omum the dilemma?

[Kaltxì Palulukan!]

Great^^

oel tawtute => oe tawtute (or oe lu tawtute , make more sense, i think)
oel tolswon => oel tamswon (it's past. perfective too, but that's not the important point here)
oel leru vrrtep => oe lu vrrtep ("be a demon" is a fact, not an action being, and "lu" don't ask for ergative: "l" of "oel")
oel tolspang => oel tamspang (even tamspangang if it's possible, i don't know)

Hey, I reread the stuff that was said here, and I think I spotted a mistake... feel free to douse me in kero and light me if I'm wrong!

The verbs tswon (spelt with four Na'vi letters: ts-w-o-n) and tspang (another four-letter word: ts-p-a-ng) both have CCVC forms, that is, they are one syllable words.  I think that the infix should be after the CC bit, like so: tswamon and tspamang.  The infixes definitely don't break up the ts- bit, since that's one sound in Na'vi, not two.

Oh, and @dustywhite: I meant syllables, too, in my previous post.  The line about speaking English had too many syllables, not vowels.  Sorry.

Now this sounds like an issue that needs to be take up with the author of that pdf. However, I actually omum this. can you believe it? I actually GET this (for once). I forget what they are called, but the consonant cluster (ts, px, kx, etc) are now seen as "single letters," which would make sense that any affix should not come between the two letters--as the "two letters" are nothing more than a HUMAN attempt to set down in writing a strictly VERBAL style of communication, right?

The Na'vi have no need for pens and paper, so they have no written language. But we, in trying to decipher the Na'vi mindset write down their words, and now we have the issue of deciding exactly "what constitutes a letter" (E, A, T, Ts, Px, and so on), which causes the issue above.

[Kaltxì Palulukan!]

Yeeeshhhh.

You never quite realise how cruel little kids are until you look back on the nusery rhymes you sang back then...

On the otherhand, this looks good and quite helpful. Irayo

Yeah, (sadly) kids can be evil! Especially if their parents have not been attentive in raising them.

[Skyinou]

Hopefully I am the only one who is confused

Not really!
But, well, that would be boring if we knew ever little things from start