Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
1
I disagree and believe there is a third possible [mis]understanding: C. the teacher and son's home.

I am in agreement with Pam here. I think shared ownership could likewise be indicated by having a genitive noun on either side of the normal noun, and quite like that as an interpretation. So that leaves 4 remaining sentences to scrutinize:

1. kelku 'itanä karyuä - the teacher's son's home
2. kelku karyuä 'itanä - the son's teacher's home
5. 'itanä karyuä kelku - the son's teacher's home
6. karyuä 'itanä kelku - the teacher's son's home

This is all well and good, and we can see that a certain sequence order does inherently exist in Na'vi in the case of common noun x common noun. However, I think it's worth pointing out that with pronoun genitive usage, there are certain constructions that don't have a legitimate grammatical meaning if following this model. Explaining this from the example I posed:

1. oeyä tsmukä tsko - my sibling's bow
2. tsmukä oeyä tsko - sibling's my bow
3. oeyä tsko tsmukä - my sibling and my bow
4. tsmukä tsko oeyä - my sibling and my bow
5. tsko oeyä tsmukä - sibling's my bow
6. tsko tsmukä oeyä - my sibling's bow

Pronouns can't be possessed by common nouns and make sense, so pronouns appear to be an exception to the rule if this sentence always means "my sibling's bow" (or mine and my sibling's bow, as Pam suggests). You can replace oeyä with ngeyä or peyä and certain orders following the same conventions as the 'itanä karyuä kelku example don't make sense.

So in summary, my two cents on this is that if 1, 2, 5, and 6 are legal constructions, then in cases of pronoun possession, the pronoun will always take priority over the common noun, regardless of structure.

1. oeyä tsmukä tsko - my sibling's bow
2. tsmukä oeyä tsko - my sibling's bow
5. tsko oeyä tsmukä - my sibling's bow
6. tsko tsmukä oeyä - my sibling's bow

Irayo ma Plumps, mesìpawm alahe txantsan lamu.

Okay, I'm terribly out of practice, and just now getting back to Na'vi, but for what it's worth... my vote is for:

1. kelku 'itanä karyuä - the teacher's son's home - the home of the son of the teacher
2. kelku karyuä 'itanä - the son's teacher's home - the home of the teacher of the son
5. 'itanä karyuä kelku - the son's teacher's home - the home of the teacher of the son
6. karyuä 'itanä kelku - the teacher's son's home - the home of the son of the teacher

because I've always though of an -ä or -yä as putting an "of the" in between the word it's attached to and the adjacent one it modifies.  So:

3. 'itanä kelku karyuä - the son and teacher's home - the home of the teacher and also of the son
4. karyuä kelku 'itanä - the teacher and son's home - the home of the son and also of the teacher

but I do admit that this interpretation is... a creative one on Pamìrìk's part :) , and might not be intuitive for all speakers.


As for the discussion of "my sibling's bow", I have to agree with Mako, for the reason's he put into words much better than I could.
2
Movies/TV / Re: Last Movie You Saw
« Last post by Toliman on Yesterday at 03:29:54 pm »
Peur sur la ville (1975)
(Fear Over the City)

excellent Frech old thriller, far better than many current movies...

10/10
3
Science / Re: Astronomy thread/Kìng a teri tanhìä tìftia
« Last post by Toliman on Yesterday at 02:33:39 pm »
In any case, it was one of the most engaged crowds I have had in a very long time. (The father of the boy who inadvertently misaligned my 'scope was quite an astronomy buff himself, and was frequently quizzing his children and other participants with astronomy questions. I wish I had more folks like that participating!)
Yeah, it's always nice when you have such interested folks :)
4
Science / Re: Astronomy thread/Kìng a teri tanhìä tìftia
« Last post by `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on Yesterday at 02:26:30 pm »
Public astronomy went really well last night despite hiccups.

I was planning to use the Planetarium's 12 inch LX200 SCT. I am about the only person who uses this 'scope due to my familiarity with Meade products, and the fact I am strong enough to handle it. However, I could not find the tripod in the Planetarium's 'scope lock-up area. So I decided to improvise and use the tripod from my 8 inch LX200, which IO think is the same tripod. OK, that problem solved. But when I opened the 'scope's carrying case, I discovered the power cables (which I custom made) were missing. So at the last minute, I used my 8 inch LX200, which by the time I had worked through the other problems, resulted in a late start.

But, the people showed up right about the time I was ready to observe but not fully aligned. It was still too light out. But, we all enjoyed nice views of the moon, Jupiter (which looked exceptionally good last night) and Venus. Once it was dark enough, I got the 'scope aligned and we looked at the only deep sky object I could easily see in this tree-surrounded, heavily light polluted site-- M3. At some point a young boy grabbed the eyepiece of my 'scope and apparently gave it a pretty good yank. After that, the 'scope wouldn't align (I doubt any damage was done, just the drive was hopelessly confused). But even so, the folks that were there wanted to see more of the easy objects, so I happily obliged. In any case, it was one of the most engaged crowds I have had in a very long time. (The father of the boy who inadvertently misaligned my 'scope was quite an astronomy buff himself, and was frequently quizzing his children and other participants with astronomy questions. I wish I had more folks like that participating!)

Tonight, more public astronomy at the zoo. We are doing our first-ever evening hours opening (A challenge, as the zoo purposely does not have any lighting at night). Despite objections about the late sunset, I was asked to bring my 'scope to the event. We'll see how well this works. We have two more of these evening openings, one in July and one in August. We should have darker skies for those events, especially the August one.
5
Minecraft / Re: Anyone still interested in a Minecraft Server?
« Last post by Mako on Yesterday at 11:51:10 am »
Just curious if anyone is still interested in having a MC server. TBH, I don't know if anyone plays Minecraft but eh, why not ask?  ;)

I might be able to host but as of right now, internet would be the only concern.

I might would join if one were hosted :)
6
Language updates / Re: 'count to', wä and sequential genitive (discussion)
« Last post by Mako on Yesterday at 10:38:04 am »
And finally, the genitive question:

Quote from: me
The last one concerns multiple genitives: By now we only ever saw 2 genitives in sequence, e.g. in your example Pìlokä fìhapxìyä tìkan lu law. ‘The aim of this section of the blog is clear.’ The question arose whether there has to be a special sequence in order for it to make sense?

Mako said to this:

“I am willing to guarantee you that because the noun ending in -y/ä has to come next to the noun it is possessing […], the nouns have to be sequenced correctly in order for the sentence to make sense. Let me show it like this:
    (1) oeyä tsmukä tsko = oeyä } tsmukä { tsko or oeyä { tsmukä { tsko
    (2) tsmukä oeyä tsko = tsmukä } oeyä { tsko or tsmukä { oeyä { tsko
Only one of these options means “My sibling’s bow”. The attribution can only go one way once the direction has been decided”

Which I’m not so sure about. To me (2) logically also means “my sibling’s bow”. What do you think about that?

Quote from: K. Pawl
I agree with you. Both (1) and (2) seem fine to me, and I don't see how they could each be interpreted as other than "my sibling's bow."

However, Mako has pointed to an issue that deserves some scrutiny. Let me throw this out for discussion.

Here are the six possible arrangements of the words 'itanä, karyuä, and kelku:

1. kelku 'itanä karyuä
2. kelku karyuä 'itanä
3. 'itanä kelku karyuä
4. karyuä kelku 'itanä
5. 'itanä karyuä kelku
6. karyuä 'itanä kelku

And here are two possible meanings of these phrases:

A. the home of the son's teacher
B. the home of the teacher's son

Here are some questions to consider:

a. Are all six phrases grammatical and acceptable, or are some of them unacceptable?

b. Of the acceptable phrases (which may be all of them), which ones have the A meaning and which have the B meaning?

c. Are any of the acceptable phrases ambiguous--that is, allowing both the A and the B meaning?

d. If there is ambiguity in any of these cases, how much of a problem is that--or should there be a rule that in a potentially ambiguous case, one meaning is to be preferred over the other?

Please throw this out for discussion! I'll be interested in how people feel about these questions.

So there it is. :) Please feel free to comment and discuss the above questions that K. Pawl laid out. I’m giving it some time before I ‘report back’ to him :P And I’m doing this here rather than on Discord just to have a better overview.

I disagree and believe there is a third possible [mis]understanding: C. the teacher and son's home.

I am in agreement with Pam here. I think shared ownership could likewise be indicated by having a genitive noun on either side of the normal noun, and quite like that as an interpretation. So that leaves 4 remaining sentences to scrutinize:

1. kelku 'itanä karyuä - the teacher's son's home
2. kelku karyuä 'itanä - the son's teacher's home
5. 'itanä karyuä kelku - the son's teacher's home
6. karyuä 'itanä kelku - the teacher's son's home

This is all well and good, and we can see that a certain sequence order does inherently exist in Na'vi in the case of common noun x common noun. However, I think it's worth pointing out that with pronoun genitive usage, there are certain constructions that don't have a legitimate grammatical meaning if following this model. Explaining this from the example I posed:

1. oeyä tsmukä tsko - my sibling's bow
2. tsmukä oeyä tsko - sibling's my bow
3. oeyä tsko tsmukä - my sibling and my bow
4. tsmukä tsko oeyä - my sibling and my bow
5. tsko oeyä tsmukä - sibling's my bow
6. tsko tsmukä oeyä - my sibling's bow

Pronouns can't be possessed by common nouns and make sense, so pronouns appear to be an exception to the rule if this sentence always means "my sibling's bow" (or mine and my sibling's bow, as Pam suggests). You can replace oeyä with ngeyä or peyä and certain orders following the same conventions as the 'itanä karyuä kelku example don't make sense.

So in summary, my two cents on this is that if 1, 2, 5, and 6 are legal constructions, then in cases of pronoun possession, the pronoun will always take priority over the common noun, regardless of structure.

1. oeyä tsmukä tsko - my sibling's bow
2. tsmukä oeyä tsko - my sibling's bow
5. tsko oeyä tsmukä - my sibling's bow
6. tsko tsmukä oeyä - my sibling's bow

Irayo ma Plumps, mesìpawm alahe txantsan lamu.
7
Language updates / Re: 'count to', wä and sequential genitive (discussion)
« Last post by Pamìrìk on Yesterday at 09:05:59 am »
Quote from: K. Pawl
And here are two possible meanings of these phrases:

A. the home of the son's teacher
B. the home of the teacher's son

I disagree and believe there is a third possible [mis]understanding: C. the teacher and son's home. Though we have seen examples of shared ownership listed with , (...mestxelit alu lora merel Tsyanä sì oeyä[naviteri]), I feel the nature of the genitive case lends itself to this possible [mis]understanding. I am not asserting that this is a correct translation or that it should be this way, but I will try to explain why I feel it is easy to interpret it as such.

This dives into misgiving I have with the genitive case in Na'vi, where it is one of few grammar structures that can lead to ambiguous constructions because it can't decide if it is or isn't an adjective. Most of the time, it does behave very much like an adjective- it can describe things with lu (fìtseng lu awngeyä), it goes next to a noun [phrase], but doesn't have the directional indicator of a that adjectives have, and doesn't take up an "adjective slot" (oeyä rima ikran akoak). Because of this weirdness, you can create ambiguous constructions like tsole'a karyul oeyä numeyut - my teacher saw student -OR- teacher saw my student. There exist workarounds for this, such as tsole'a karyul numeyut oeyä - obviously "my student" due to placement, so choosing a particular word order for the sentence to escape inherent ambiguity is par for the course for the genitive. While I think it is ungraceful, it's not totally unheard of (see apxa, the topical, clause attribution).

This brings me to KP's important questions:

Quote
a. Are all six phrases grammatical and acceptable, or are some of them unacceptable?
This is what we are trying to figure out.

Quote
b. Of the acceptable phrases (which may be all of them), which ones have the A meaning and which have the B meaning?

For each, I will mark how I feel.

A. the home of the son's teacher (son's teacher's home)
B. the home of the teacher's son (teacher's son's home)
C. the home of the teacher and son (misunderstanding), or, "this is a potential problem"


1. kelku 'itanä karyuä  B
2. kelku karyuä 'itanä  A
3. 'itanä kelku karyuä  C
4. karyuä kelku 'itanä  C
5. 'itanä karyuä kelku  A
6. karyuä 'itanä kelku  B

Quote
c. Are any of the acceptable phrases ambiguous--that is, allowing both the A and the B meaning?
As stated above, 3 and 4 are not immediately clear, and lend themselves to confusion. Because of the genitive case's ability to be on either side of its noun phrase, AND it's lack of need to be next to the noun itself (oeyä rima ikran akoak), there are two meanings:

3. ( ('itanä kelku) karyuä )
3. ( 'itanä ( kelku karyuä ) )

1, 2, 5, and 6 get around this by only providing one valid interpretation:

1.  ( (kelku 'itanä ) karyuä )
5. ('itanä ( karyuä kelku ) )

This is internally consistent with the logic of clause attribution nesting, another grammar problem solved by mandating a specific order/clustering of clauses. Languages don't always have to be internally logical and consistent, but in nearly everything else Na'vi is, and if it was up to me I would preserve this.

Quote
d. If there is ambiguity in any of these cases, how much of a problem is that--or should there be a rule that in a potentially ambiguous case, one meaning is to be preferred over the other?

There is ambiguity, and it is an issue. I believe that the rule to solve this gracefully is to chain modals to always read in their relationship order from the noun, outward. This is actually how I assumed it worked up until this point, and was surprised to find it wasn't already a rule.

In a world where Ayä noun Byä constructions are legal, I would always side on the relationship being as follows:

3. ( ('itanä kelku) karyuä ) B. the home of the teacher's son (teacher's son's home)

This mirrors how the topical case can sometimes be employed for inalienable possession (and must be at the beginning of a sentence). I feel the Na'vi would be more used to hearing a "primary possessor" first. Perhaps not the strongest argument, but it's the only case I could come up with for either of them given the rest of what I know about Na'vi grammar.

Thanks for sharing! I eagerly await a decision, one way or another, on this issue.
8
Language updates / Re: 'count to', wä and sequential genitive (discussion)
« Last post by aze on Yesterday at 06:10:45 am »
Please take my words with a grain of salt, as I am not the most proficient with Na'vi.

1. kelku 'itanä karyuä A (home of son's teacher).
2. kelku karyuä 'itanä B (home of teacher's son).
3. 'itanä kelku karyuä A (home of son's teacher), but possibly incorrect
4. karyuä kelku 'itanä B (home of teacher's son), but possibly incorrect.
5. 'itanä karyuä kelku A (home of son's teacher).
6. karyuä 'itanä kelku B (home of teacher's son).

I feel as though the main thing that determines this for me is which one comes first, since there aren't any other clarifiers. I see 3 and 4 as feeling incorrect, I'm not sure why. It may be an english thing, or it may be that having the subject (home) between the two qualifiers (son and teacher, which dictate which home it is) confuses me even more. At the same time, however, unambiguous sentences don't feel 'wrong' to me even if they're not in stereotypical 'english' order. Still, as a primarily English speaker I tend to personally prefer having it in a linear order, even though Na'vi doesn't need to follow that pattern, so that may be why I don't like them as much.

The most interesting thing is that to me, despite this being my reflex reaction (re: the meanings), I could easily see both meanings in each sentence; this is to say that they are all ambiguous to me, because there don't appear to be any real markers to signify what's going on. I feel that in the case of a potentially ambiguous sentence / case, the first thing encountered should be treated as the 'dominant' meaning; in essence, if you first speak about the teacher, you should assume it's about the teacher's son (and in this example, as a result, the teacher's son's home). This could easily solve any ambiguity issues that come up.
9
Language updates / 'count to', wä and sequential genitive (discussion)
« Last post by Plumps on Yesterday at 05:40:17 am »
Ma frapo,

I had the opportunity to ask K. Pawl about a few things that came up for discussion on the Discord server. So here it goes:


Quote from: me
How do we say “Count from 3 to 8”? Would tiam ta pxey vay vol suffice? Somebody suggested ne as the adposition. Pamìrìk suggested, since most people start from ’aw to just say tiam vay/ne vol.
Tsari pefya nga fpìl?

Quote from: K. Pawl
I like vay here. Ne implies motion towards something, and is used mainly with verbs of motion like kä, za'u, tätxaw, etc. But this brings up another question. What if it's not counting from 3 (up)to 8, but rather from 8 down to 3? Countdowns are certainly common! A similar situation occurs if, say, the temperature falls from 20 degrees to 15 degrees. What is "to"? Vay doesn't seem appropriate, since it implies "up to." I'm wondering if we need a new adposition meaning "down to" as the opposite of vay. […]

BTW, I think Tiam vay vol is fine.

So, it seems that there is another adposition needed for “down to”. Maybe something for a new LEP entry? :D Feel free to suggest things there.



Concerning

Quote from: me
Could be used as the opposite of ìlä ‘according to (a person)’ in the sense of ‘contrary to (what somebody said)’ as in:

     Wä Feyral, muntxa ke soli Ralu sì Newey nìwan mesrram.
     “Contrary to what Peyral reported, Ralu and Newey were not secretly married the day before yesterday.”

Quote from: K. Pawl
I hadn't thought of that use of , but I like it. I don't see why it shouldn't be used in the way you've described. I also like tì’efuwä oeyä. It'd be used in sentences like, Tì’efuwä oeyä, fpìl Peyralìl futa ke zene ayoeng kivä. I.e., "I think we have to go, but Peyral doesn't."



And finally, the genitive question:

Quote from: me
The last one concerns multiple genitives: By now we only ever saw 2 genitives in sequence, e.g. in your example Pìlokä fìhapxìyä tìkan lu law. ‘The aim of this section of the blog is clear.’ The question arose whether there has to be a special sequence in order for it to make sense?

Mako said to this:

“I am willing to guarantee you that because the noun ending in -y/ä has to come next to the noun it is possessing […], the nouns have to be sequenced correctly in order for the sentence to make sense. Let me show it like this:
    (1) oeyä tsmukä tsko = oeyä } tsmukä { tsko or oeyä { tsmukä { tsko
    (2) tsmukä oeyä tsko = tsmukä } oeyä { tsko or tsmukä { oeyä { tsko
Only one of these options means “My sibling’s bow”. The attribution can only go one way once the direction has been decided”

Which I’m not so sure about. To me (2) logically also means “my sibling’s bow”. What do you think about that?

Quote from: K. Pawl
I agree with you. Both (1) and (2) seem fine to me, and I don't see how they could each be interpreted as other than "my sibling's bow."

However, Mako has pointed to an issue that deserves some scrutiny. Let me throw this out for discussion.

Here are the six possible arrangements of the words 'itanä, karyuä, and kelku:

1. kelku 'itanä karyuä
2. kelku karyuä 'itanä
3. 'itanä kelku karyuä
4. karyuä kelku 'itanä
5. 'itanä karyuä kelku
6. karyuä 'itanä kelku

And here are two possible meanings of these phrases:

A. the home of the son's teacher
B. the home of the teacher's son

Here are some questions to consider:

a. Are all six phrases grammatical and acceptable, or are some of them unacceptable?

b. Of the acceptable phrases (which may be all of them), which ones have the A meaning and which have the B meaning?

c. Are any of the acceptable phrases ambiguous--that is, allowing both the A and the B meaning?

d. If there is ambiguity in any of these cases, how much of a problem is that--or should there be a rule that in a potentially ambiguous case, one meaning is to be preferred over the other?

Please throw this out for discussion! I'll be interested in how people feel about these questions.

So there it is. :) Please feel free to comment and discuss the above questions that K. Pawl laid out. I’m giving it some time before I ‘report back’ to him :P And I’m doing this here rather than on Discord just to have a better overview.
10
Science / Re: Astronomy thread/Kìng a teri tanhìä tìftia
« Last post by Toliman on Yesterday at 05:06:47 am »
Tonight sky was partly cloudy. I tried observe Saturn and Mars through holes between clouds but seeing was not extra good.

hrh...last week I was able observe mars almost every night.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines | XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, or the Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi