Help with translation! Please!

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

Yes, well, each day = everyday. Why wouldn't just using fratrr without modification work?

because what the story wants to tell is not that every day the men did what they did, but it says that every day in which the Astrologer did his stuff, the Farmer did his and so on. I know it's basically the same thing but the story wants to emphasize the fact the actions took place at the same time. every day while one did something, another one did something else.

but the four men aren't on the island anymore (as the end of the story states). I want the reader to understand that the men aren't on it anymore.

Consider the underlined part. The end of the story isn't the beginning of the story. The beginning only says that they 'were on the island', not that they had left.

yes, but consider what I have underlined. the story tells they were on the island. the whole story is told from that point of view. the first word of the story "once" tells us that.

[Carborundum]

because what the story wants to tell is not that every day the men did what they did, but it says that every day in which the Astrologer did his stuff, the Farmer did his and so on. I know it's basically the same thing but the story wants to emphasize the fact the actions took place at the same time. every day while one did something, another one did something else.

In what way is that unclear when using only fratrr and ‹arm›? The English version doesn't go to any lengths to explain that everything is simultaneous, so why should the Na'vi?

but the four men aren't on the island anymore (as the end of the story states). I want the reader to understand that the men aren't on it anymore.

Consider the underlined part. The end of the story isn't the beginning of the story. The beginning only says that they 'were on the island', not that they had left.

yes, but consider what I have underlined. the story tells they were on the island. the whole story is told from that point of view. the first word of the story "once" tells us that.

Look at it this way. 'Were' is past tense. Why change it to perfective aspect for Na'vi?

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

[In what way is that unclear when using only fratrr and ‹arm›? The English version doesn't go to any lengths to explain that everything is simultaneous, so why should the Na'vi?

now thinking about it, you are totally right. it's the English version that is kind of dumb. the story says that each day while the astrologer did ...... the others did........
the story is actually saying that all of those were happening while the Astrologer did ......... and thus making them parallel. an unneccessary long and twisted form of the English language.

Look at it this way. 'Were' is past tense. Why change it to perfective aspect for Na'vi?

because if it is not imperfective, it is perfective. I already have two kinds of infixes in this story and I don't want to add another one so I don't complicate it for the reader, and plus it will seem weird because it won't belong there.

[Carborundum]

if it is not imperfective, it is perfective.

No it isn't.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

how is it possible. if something isn't finished, well, it's not finished. and if something is not not finished, it's finished. those are total opposites. how something possible be both those things at the same time? also there is no other aspect that is possible. have you ever thought why are there only 2 aspects in Na'vi and not more?

[Carborundum]

how is it possible. if something isn't finished, well, it's not finished. and if something is not not finished, it's finished. those are total opposites. how something possible be both those things at the same time? also there is no other aspect that is possible. have you ever thought why are there only 2 aspects in Na'vi and not more?

It is entirely possible to omit aspect altogether. Aspect is not just a matter of state information, it's mostly about how the event is portrayed. Using a common example, 'I go to the store' and 'I am going to the store' both describe ongoing processes, but only one is imperfective (more specifically, progressive).

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

so do you mean I can just right tok?
and to our subject, I think both tamok and tolok would be good here. tamok because it is clear from the story's point of view that the action is perfective (the men once lived there), and tolok just fits in better and gets the reader better into the story.

[Carborundum]

so do you mean I can just right tok?

No, I don't mean that.

tolok just fits in better and gets the reader better into the story.

I assure you it does not. A perfective is viewed as a completed whole and lacks internal structure. Describing events inside a perfective is extremely poor style. As I said before, tamok would fit best. In fact, it's the only viable option here.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

well ok than. I guess I'm not so advanced to argue with someone like you. I'll change it (after all it's not incorrect).

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

so does anyone want to say another something or can I move on to the next paragraph?

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

so here is the third paragraph. correct if needed (it's needed). the empty lines is where the word "fruit" should be because I had no idea how to say it.

Trr akinä sre fì'u, Ewllä Vewngyul varmewng sneyä ewllit ulte tsakrr yayol a tswarmayon io po tolungzup vultsyìpit ta kxa peyä. Vultsyìp zolup asim Ewllä Vewngyuä mevenu. Krr a nolìn fì'ut, tsole'a tsata mì vultsyìp lamu _____ a ke tsame'a kawkrr. Tsakrr po fpolìl san kxawm lu tseng a mì sa'u lu pxaya _____ amip a tsayun oe vivewng sìk.
Ha krr a Sanhìyä Ftiayul poleng Ewllä Vewngyuru sneyä tìhawl, pol fpolìl tsata fì'u lu txantsana säfpìl. Slä Ewllä Vewngyul tslolam futa txampay lu nìtxan apxa ulte mefol kayin fya'ot ka tsa'u. ha kolä mefo ne kelku Fpìlyuä Ayuä Amip.

[7tounges]

Firstly thanks everyone for getting involved.
and espesially thanks to Tswusayona Tsamsiyu for keeping at it.

I can tell that this is a very difficult task that ive set you, but when i see you disscuss it in such a passionate manner really gives me faith in this project that im working on.

the empty lines is where the word "fruit" should be because I had no idea how to say it.

also, for this i was thinking that maybe you could change fruit for 'food plant' or some form of 'syuve'ewll' or just 'ewll.

Thanks again.

[Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì]

Firstly thanks everyone for getting involved.
and espesially thanks to Tswusayona Tsamsiyu for keeping at it.

I can tell that this is a very difficult task that ive set you, but when i see you disscuss it in such a passionate manner really gives me faith in this project that im working on.

the empty lines is where the word "fruit" should be because I had no idea how to say it.

also, for this i was thinking that maybe you could change fruit for 'food plant' or some form of 'syuve'ewll' or just 'ewll.

Thanks again.

Hm, well we do have "fkxen" but that is translated as vegetable...probably not the meaning you want. To have the meaning "food plant" you'd have to have it be "syuve a 'ewll" since you are using syuve to describe 'ewll.

-Txonä Rolyu

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

I think I will go with "fkxen" since it doesn't really matter if it is a fruit or a vegetable. the point is that it is a plant that you can eat.

and irayo ma 7tounges. it is a very interesting task for me and I'm learning a lot of words and having a lot of fun.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

please tell me if there's something I need to correct in the third paragraph so I will be able to move on.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

ok then I will now move on to the next paragraph. so if anyone has something to say about this one, say it now, and if everything is fine also say it please so I will be sure.

[Carborundum]

Vultsyìp zolup asim Ewllä Vewngyuä mevenu.

Ewllä Vewngyuä mevenu is kind of stranded, with nothing tying it together with the rest of the sentence. Asim is an adverb, not an adposition, which is what is needed here. Also, body parts are considered inalienable possessions, which means the possessor can take the topical case instead of the genitive (the genitive is still correct, but less idiomatic).

Ewllä Vewngyuri vultsyìp zolup mevenulok

Slä Ewllä Vewngyul tslolam futa txampay lu nìtxan apxa ulte mefol kayin fya'ot ka tsa'u.

Few would fit better than ka at the end here.

few (ADP-) 'across, aiming for the opposite side of'

NOTE: This new adposition is distinct from the existing adposition ka-, which means "across" in the sense of "covering thoroughly"

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

next paragraph (did my best but for lacks in vocabulary had to put out some words, so it is shorter than in English):

Fpìlyu Ayuä Amip harmeyn kelkumì sneyä, pxaya aysäfpìlhu a ke lu ftue.
Krr a Sanhìyä Ftiayu sì Ewllä Vewngyu poleng poru teri säfpìl mesneyä po fpolìl san txantsan! 'u a kin ayoel oeru lu sìk.
Po fwamew pxaya säfpìlkxamlä ulte rolun pum.
San fì'u lu sìk poltxe Fpìlyu ulte tsakrr poltxe san slä awngal kayin tuteot a txayula fì'ut. Ätxäle sivi Txulayur Utralfa ko sìk. Ha pxefo kolä ne kelku Txulayuä Utralfa.

[7tounges]

Wow,
      Iraya frapo,

This is amazing. Its so feels so good to see people working on this project, and enjoying it.

Keep up the good work.

Irayo si.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

hey again. besides the regular corrections I thought of something else. perhaps Säfpìltu will be much better than Fpìlyu Ayuä Amip. what do you think? and don't forget to tell me if there's something other to correct in my translations.