complex translation

[AuLekye'ung]

Well, you might be done with it, but all the same i'm going to keep exploring this topic, because i'm still learning.

Well, in that case...  I had just figured that I was getting annoying.

"I had seen Avatar before i took my mother to see it."

The flaw with that is that you still had seen it.  Therefore it is still in the past tense.

The "had seen" is separate from the "before I took my mother to see it".  In other words, the fact that you had already seen it is irrelevant to the fact that you had taken your mother to see it; all it does is tell the reader that you had completed the first action (seeing Avatar) before you took the second action (taking you mother to see it.)

"When my cousin is(IPFV) in town, i will see(PFV) him."  Or am i misunderstanding how these are used?

The problem with that one is "I will see him" is simply future tense.  There needs to be no comma in there; simply "When my cousin is in town I will see him."  Perhaps, "When my cousin is next in town it will be the fifth time I've seen him."  Although, all that does is expand on "I will see him", so it is still just future tense.

Does that make sense?

[Nawmaritie]

Except perfective has to mean past.  You can have completed something in the future, and if you can't have completed something in the present, you can only complete it.

I assume you meant "can't".  And you're right, except in science fiction you can't have completed something that's not yet happened; but my understanding was that the perfective is used to describe an event that occurs contained in time, whereas the imperfective is less... temporally bound, i would say.  The example i remember from school was something like, "I was walking(IPFV) down the street when i saw(PFV) my teacher."  But there's no reason you couldn't create a similar structure describing events in the future:

"When my cousin is(IPFV) in town, i will see(PFV) him."  Or am i misunderstanding how these are used?

I think Keye'unga Au means "can", because you can express things like "I will be done in 5 minuts" for example. Which boils down to Future Perfect.
I don't think you're misunderstanding things here, but the example is not a good one in my opinion, because you can't complete "being something".
Bay saying "I will see him" with future perfect, you imply that you will see him and then be done with it and not gonna see him anymore.

I think Perfect means done with it and being kinda sure about it. Imperfect to "not be done".

e.g.:
past imperfect: I was learning 20 years ago
recent past imperfect: I was learning 5 minutes ago
imperfect: I'm learning
near future imperfect: I will be learning in 5 minutes
future imperfect: I will be learning in 20 years ... and still not be done with it

Also, the compound <alm> isn't in any of the dictionaries or lists of inflections, because it would mean in the past you completed something in the past.

I know it's not on any of our lists, but that obviously doesn't stop people on this forum from stretching the limits of what we do know.  And you very much can describe a situation in which, "in the past you completed something in the past."  I believed it's called the pluperfect tense:

"I had seen Avatar before i took my mother to see it."

If anybody else following this post would like to jump in and correct my understanding of these verb tenses, i'd be appreciative.

At any rate, i appreciate all of your feedback here, ma Keye'unga Au.  Irayo ma 'eylan, ulte Eywa ngahu.

I agree here, that it might be usable, although it's not in the list (yet). I've been doing so myself (past imperfect XD)


I just think that the past perfect is normally not very usable, as most of the time from the context is clear, whether the action is finished or not.

It would definitely be useful to add a bit of spice into the speech:
"Are you done yet?" ... "I was done 20 years ago"

[AuLekye'ung]

No, I meant can't.

Perfect means completed, imperfect means on-going.

past imperfect: I was learning 20 years ago
recent past imperfect: I was learning 5 minutes ago
imperfect: I'm learning
near future imperfect: I will be learning in 5 minutes
future imperfect: I will be learning in 20 years ... and still not be done with it

I was learning 20 years ago is just perfect tense.  I was learning | 20 years ago.
The 20 years ago just indicates when you finished learning.

Same for the next one.

Imperfect is present tense; I am doing something.

I will be doing something in whenever is future tense; it has not begun.

Perfect tense refers ONLY to something completed in the past.
Imperfect tense refers to something being done in the present.

Therefore <a<l>m> cannot exist, as it combines two infixes meaning past.

Perfect and imperfect tenses cannot have additional future or past indicators on them, as they already refer to specific points in time; the point in the past when something was completed and the present, respectively.

My Na'vi is not at the same level as many people here, but my English grammar is, I assure you, quite good.

[Tengfya swizaw]

Wait, so I'm a little confused. What tense or aspect could I use to say, for example, "to tell" as in "I ask you to tell someone"?
I'm leaning towards <er> but that doesn't really seem right.

[wm.annis]

Perfect tense refers ONLY to something completed in the past.
Imperfect tense refers to something being done in the present.

Therefore <a<l>m> cannot exist, as it combines two infixes meaning past.

Perfect and imperfect tenses cannot have additional future or past indicators on them, as they already refer to specific points in time; the point in the past when something was completed and the present, respectively.

I'm afraid this is 100% incorrect.  Tense and aspect both relate to time, but in different ways.  Aspect exists in Na'vi independent of tense.  Please read this: http://forum.learnnavi.org/syntax-grammar/na'vi-linguistics-tense-and-aspect/

[Nawmaritie]

No, I meant can't.

Perfect means completed, imperfect means on-going.

past imperfect: I was learning 20 years ago
recent past imperfect: I was learning 5 minutes ago
imperfect: I'm learning
near future imperfect: I will be learning in 5 minutes
future imperfect: I will be learning in 20 years ... and still not be done with it

I was learning 20 years ago is just perfect tense.  I was learning | 20 years ago.
The 20 years ago just indicates when you finished learning.

Same for the next one.

Imperfect is present tense; I am doing something.

I will be doing something in whenever is future tense; it has not begun.

Perfect tense refers ONLY to something completed in the past.
Imperfect tense refers to something being done in the present.

Therefore <a<l>m> cannot exist, as it combines two infixes meaning past.

Perfect and imperfect tenses cannot have additional future or past indicators on them, as they already refer to specific points in time; the point in the past when something was completed and the present, respectively.

My Na'vi is not at the same level as many people here, but my English grammar is, I assure you, quite good.

Um, the "20 years" and "5 minutes" were just to indicate the timeframe of the action.

I meant "I was learning and am still doing it", which boils down to Oe narmume

We have the forms for past perfect (arm) and recent past perfect (ìrm)


The problem is, that the Na'vi grammar is not identical to the English or German (my first language) grammar. Maybe there is a similar or identical construction, but the name might be different.
In German we have "imperfect" (the action was actually completed in the past), Perfect (the action is still ongoing) and plusquam perfect (long time ago). So the tense/aspect for "imperfect" is pretty much the opposite to English

Aside from something like "I'm hunting (at the moment)" the names for the tense might be totally different in different languages, be it Na'vi, English, German or Latin

[AuLekye'ung]

As I said, I know my English grammar but my Na'vi is not to that point, so, now I'm confused about the perfective and imperfective tense.

My understanding is that the perfective tense is a completed action.  The time period (20 years/whatever) is completely separate.

Perhaps I worded my imperfective definition wrong.  Is then, <ìm> or <ay> imperfective?  I figured that only <er> was imperfective and <ol> is perfective.

Therefore, from that definition the imperfective and perfective can't have modifiers.

However, English is really the only language I know well, and, I guess, it's kinda hard to switch to a lot of other languages from there.

Perfect means completed, imperfect means on-going.

Quote
past imperfect: I was learning 20 years ago
recent past imperfect: I was learning 5 minutes ago
imperfect: I'm learning
near future imperfect: I will be learning in 5 minutes
future imperfect: I will be learning in 20 years ... and still not be done with it

I was learning 20 years ago is just perfect tense.  I was learning | 20 years ago.
The 20 years ago just indicates when you finished learning.

I am terribly sorry; I read those as perfect, not imperfect.  I feel like a bit of an idiot now.  Terrible way of paying attention.

So, how does the imperfect tense change with aspect?

[wm.annis]

My understanding is that the perfective tense is a completed action.  The time period (20 years/whatever) is completely separate.

First, there is no "perfective tense."  There is perfective aspect.  Tense and aspect must be kept separate in Na'vi.  This is completely alien to English (and most European languages), because all of our verb forms and expressions simultaneously indicate tense and aspect.  In Na'vi you can use tense, or aspect, or both, or neither, as you see fit so long as your meaning is clear.  This means it's basically impossible to come up with a truly accurate way to translate a Na'vi verb that has been marked for aspect only.

Here's a phrase from Frommer's message, along with his translation:

Tì'eyngit oel tolel a krr, ayngaru payeng, ...
When I receive an answer, I will let you know, ...

Here he has used the perfective in the "when" clause — to describe an action that will, we fervently hope, take place in the future.  To speak of "completed in the past" here makes no sense.

Perhaps I worded my imperfective definition wrong.  Is then, <ìm> or <ay> imperfective?

Those infixes are for tense, and by themselves they say nothing at all about the aspect.

So, how does the imperfect tense change with aspect?

Again, while many Eurolangs have something that gets called an "imperfect tense" the Na'vi imperfective is an aspect only.

[AuLekye'ung]

In other words, everything I know about English means nothing in this case?

[wm.annis]

In other words, everything I know about English means nothing in this case?

Well, not nothing — the core narrative uses of the perfective and imperfective are fairly common across languages, even English and Na'vi.  But there's a serious mismatch in how Na'vi and English mark these which can lead people astray if care isn't taken.

[AuLekye'ung]

Right.  Well, I feel like quite an idiot.

Irayo for that explanation, however, ulte Eywa ngahu.

[wm.annis]

Right.  Well, I feel like quite an idiot.

No need for that!  This is, after all the Learn Na'vi web site, not the Na'vi Expert web site. 

[Kì'eyawn]

Jeez, i walk away long enough to get some dinner, and the whole Na'vi world's gone crazy... =P

I feel like i've kicked up some sort of linguistic dust storm in here.  Other than a very brief (and largely fruitless) foray into Turkish, all of my language experience is with English and Romance languages, so i'm...a little overwhelmed by all this.  I'll go check out that thread on tense and aspect; thank you for pointing it out.

Thank you all for the discussion--including you, ma Keye'unga Au; please don't get the impression i'm bothered in the least.  We're all here to learn--and it's kinda fun, really, puzzling our way through this language together.

Irayo, ma oeyä smukan, ulte Eywa ayngahu.

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì, ma smukan.  Due to updates in our Na'vi knowledge (and my vocabulary), i've updated this translation.

Pelun? Nga oeru perängawm san pelun?  Fa fra`u a oe sami fte zamivunge ngati fìtseng, fa fra`u a oe soli fte `eykivì`awn ngaru fìtseng, pefya tsun livängu lestunslu fwa ngal ke tslam...futa lu nga oeru?

Pelun? Nga oeru perängawm san pelun?
Pelun?  Nga         oe-ru  p<er><äng>awm  san     pelun?
Why?   You.NTR   i-DAT  ask<IPFV><PEJ>  quote   why? 

Fa fra'u a oe sami fte zamivunge ngati fìtseng,
Fa     fra'u           a        oe        s<am>i    fte      zam<iv>unge nga-ti       fìtseng,
With everything   ATTR    i.NTR   do<PST>  for.to   bring<SBJ>    you-ACC    here,

fa fra'u a oe soli fte 'eykivì'awn ngaru fìtseng,
fa     fra'u           a        oe        s<ol>i      fte     '<eyk><iv>ì'awn         nga-r(u)   fìtseng
with  everything  ATTR  i.NTR     do<PFV> for.to   stay<CAUS><SUBJ>    you-DAT    here,

Pefya tsun livängu letsunslu fwa ngal ke tslam...futa lu nga oeru?
pefya tsun livängu               letsunslu  fwa ngal          ke  tslam          futa lu  nga       oeru?
how   can  be<SUB><PEJ>   possible  that you-ERG    not understand   that be you.NTR i-DAT?

Please let me know what you make of this latest attempt, ma oeyä eylan.  Ayngaru irayo seiyi oe, ma smukan; Eywa ayngahu.

[AuLekye'ung]

Now, I see a couple of problems.  However, as seen in the previous disastrous attempt I did to help, take what I say with a grain of salt.

Why is san needed?  Also, would it not need sìk to complete it?  Also, I don't believe the dative goes there, since, as I understand, the dative indicates what something is being done to.  Ask is transitive, so you have a subject and an object.  I believe the first part should be:

Pelun?  Ngal perängawm oel pelun?
Pelun?  Nga-l p<er><äng>awm oe-t pelun?
Why?  You-ERG ask-IPFV-NEG I-ACC why?

In the second part, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think si can stand alone;

So I tried to break it down further: Fa fra'u a : oe s<am>i fte : zam<iv>unge nga-ti fitseng,

Fa = with,by means of; personally I feel that that definition doesn't quite fit what you want.  But I've looked and can't come up with anything better.

For the si problem, si CAN stand alone if it has been previously established what it is modifying, example given here is:
Nga tsap'alute si soli srak?
You apology make yes/no?
Did you apologize?
Soli.
I did.

So, for oe sami fte, you would have to indicate what you did, as noun + si.  For instance, kelku si literally is home make, but translates as to live.  So, what did he do?  Assuming that the reader knew whatever it was he did that would be fine, so, it does work, since this is a quote from a larger work.

The only thing, then, that I think needs to be changed is fa, but I cannot think of a good way to change it.

For the third part, bring should not be in the subjunctive, as there is no modal verb modifying it.  Likely it should be in the perfective <ol>, as you brought them.  Also, I felt that ne fìtseng works better.  But, again, take that with a grain of salt.

Therefore, I believe the first part of the sentence should read: Fa(?) fra'y oe s<am>i fte z<ol>amunge ngati ne fìtseng.

Next one:
Same thing with fa, and, if you want "everything I've done", perhaps <er> for the present imperfective?  Or <am> for the past imperfective?

Can you explain 'eykivì'awn?  I'm not sure where all that is coming from.  'ì'awn is stay, but again there is no modal verb modifying stay, so the <iv> is unnecessary, and where is <eyk> coming from?

Perhaps all the fte's can be replaced with fte nga/oe tsun?  So that you/I can <whatever>?  In that case the <iv> subjunctives can stay.  In fact, that is probably the format you want.

Possibly write it as: Fa(?) fra'u oe seri fte tsun 'eykivì'awn ngat ne fìtseng.?

The third part:
Perhaps: peyfa tsun fi'u livängu letsunslu a ngal ke tslivam oeyä ngati livu?
how can this(thing) be possible, that you don't understand mine you be?
How can it be possible that you don't understand you're mine?

I believe that "can" (tsun) effects all the remaining verbs, making them all subjunctive.

a is the "that" that you are looking for.

Dative -ru indicates what the action is going to; the genitive -yä indicates possession.  Therefore, for "you are mine." would be oeyä (mine) ngati (you) lu (be).  However, I could be wrong.

So, I ended up with: Pelun?  Ngal oet perängawm pelun?  Fa fra'u oe soli fte oe tsun zamimvunge ngat ne fìtseng, fa fra'u oe seri fte tsun nga 'eyk(?)ivì'awn fìtseng, peyfa tsun fi'u livängu letsunslu a ngal ke tslivam oeyä ngat livu?

Again, take this with a grain of salt (or sand, I don't remember which).  I think I'm correct, but you might want a second opinion.

EDIT:  Sorry for the extreme length.  I was trying not to leave things out.

[Kì'eyawn]

Why is san needed?  Also, would it not need sìk to complete it?  Also, I don't believe the dative goes there, since, as I understand, the dative indicates what something is being done to.  Ask is transitive, so you have a subject and an object.  I believe the first part should be:

Pelun?  Ngal perängawm oel pelun?
Pelun?  Nga-l p<er><äng>awm oe-t pelun?
Why?  You-ERG ask-IPFV-NEG I-ACC why?

Well, if you look at the original quote (and i apologize that this sentence is taken out of context), he's responding to a character who asked him something like, "Why did you want x to happen?"  To which he responds,

Why?  You're asking me, "why"?

So, that is why i used san; he's quoting what someone just said to him.  As for why i didn't use sìk also, it's because (i think i mentioned this somewhere earlier) 1) we know that you don't have to use both of these words if the quotation is either at the very beginning or very end of the statement--and i thought the pause before he goes into the next sentence would suffice to communicate that he was done quoting her, and 2) i just found it aesthetically pleasing for him to end the sentence by repeating the word he started with, as he does in the original English quote.

As for the causative dative, it's a defect of English idiom that we ask people things; really, she (ERG) is asking the question (ACC) of him (DAT)--but since i don't think we put accusative markers on quotes, that part gets left out.  Now, if he said, "You're asking me a question" this would be more grammatically clear:

Nga-l      oe-ru  tìpawm-it      p<er><äng>awm
You-ERG  i-DAT question-ACC ask<IPFV><PEJ>

In the second part, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think si can stand alone;

...

For the si problem, si CAN stand alone if it has been previously established what it is modifying, example given here is:
Nga tsap'alute si soli srak?
You apology make yes/no?
Did you apologize?
Soli.
I did.

You're right; i think i got a bit too literal in how i was thinking about this verb.  Hmm...  Well, since the intended meaning is, "With everything i've done to make-x-happen," maybe i was wrong to use fra'u.  I believe it was suggested earlier that kem si is the verb i was going for, but i still haven't come across it anywhere but in the forums, so...  I dunno what to do here, honestly.  It seems like what i need is, "with every action i've done for to x," but since *frakem is not a word as far as i know...

For the third part, bring should not be in the subjunctive, as there is no modal verb modifying it.

I used the subjunctive because of what we've learned recently about constructions using fte; no, there's no modal verb, but nonetheless the verb coming after fte needs to be in the subjunctive.

Can you explain 'eykivì'awn?  I'm not sure where all that is coming from.  'ì'awn is stay, but again there is no modal verb modifying stay, so the <iv> is unnecessary, and where is <eyk> coming from?

Literally, what i was going for in that phrase was, "with everything that i've done [for] to make you stay here," ("for to" is a bit archaic in modern English, but it helps me think about the underlying grammar), so...  The subjunctive infix is due to the verb being part of a fte construction, and the causative infix is because the point is that he's making her stay--unless i'm misunderstanding the use of that infix?  That's entirely possible.

Perhaps all the fte's can be replaced with fte nga/oe tsun?  So that you/I can <whatever>?  In that case the <iv> subjunctives can stay.  In fact, that is probably the format you want.

That is what i was going for, but i was hoping since the subject oe was already in the part of the phrase preceding the fte (in those "with everything i've done" bits), i didn't think it needed to be restated.

The third part:
I believe that "can" (tsun) effects all the remaining verbs, making them all subjunctive.

You may be right; i'm not clear on what happens when a modal verb precedes a complex phrase like this.

a is the "that" that you are looking for.

*Shrug*  Again, i still haven't quite got my fwa's and futa's and a's sorted out  I forget where i saw this, but the way i've been thinking of this is, "How can be possible this you-not-knowing thing," and then, nested within that, "you not knowing this you're-mine-thing."  

Wow, that's terribly confusing to look at.  I'm sorry i can't think of a better way to make the goings-on inside my brain make sense on paper (screen?)...

Dative -ru indicates what the action is going to; the genitive -yä indicates possession.  Therefore, for "you are mine." would be oeyä (mine) ngati (you) lu (be).  However, I could be wrong.

I'm afraid so.  We have heard directly from Karyu Pawl that the dative can be used to describe possession.  for example,

Lu fayswizaw oeru

Literally, "these arrows are to-me" -- these are my arrows.  Now, it is possible that oeyä can mean not only "my" but "mine"--in which case, this phrase could be more easily translated as, Nga lu oeyä--"you are mine."  But, until we hear from Karyu Pawl, we do know that the dative construction is an acceptable way to communicate this idea, even if it seems a bit cumbersome to an English speaker.

If i missed any of your response, ma tsmukan, i apologize; i was a cutting-and-pasting fool.  I appreciate your feedback on this, and i'm looking forward to continuing to learn what the heck it is i'm doing with this crazy language =)  Irayo, ulte Eywa ngahu.

[AuLekye'ung]

Quote from: Lekeye'unga Au on 2010-02-20, 16:31:03
Why is san needed?  Also, would it not need sìk to complete it?  Also, I don't believe the dative goes there, since, as I understand, the dative indicates what something is being done to.  Ask is transitive, so you have a subject and an object.  I believe the first part should be:

Pelun?  Ngal perängawm oel pelun?
Pelun?  Nga-l p<er><äng>awm oe-t pelun?
Why?  You-ERG ask-IPFV-NEG I-ACC why?


Well, if you look at the original quote (and i apologize that this sentence is taken out of context), he's responding to a character who asked him something like, "Why did you want x to happen?"  To which he responds,

Why?  You're asking me, "why"?

So, that is why i used san; he's quoting what someone just said to him.  As for why i didn't use sìk also, it's because (i think i mentioned this somewhere earlier) 1) we know that you don't have to use both of these words if the quotation is either at the very beginning or very end of the statement--and i thought the pause before he goes into the next sentence would suffice to communicate that he was done quoting her, and 2) i just found it aesthetically pleasing for him to end the sentence by repeating the word he started with, as he does in the original English quote.

Oe tsap'alute si.  It would have been nice to have more context, but I think I understand why you did that now.

Quote
For the third part, bring should not be in the subjunctive, as there is no modal verb modifying it.


I used the subjunctive because of what we've learned recently about constructions using fte; no, there's no modal verb, but nonetheless the verb coming after fte needs to be in the subjunctive.

I had not seen that, thank you.  I need to keep more on top of these things.

Quote
Dative -ru indicates what the action is going to; the genitive -yä indicates possession.  Therefore, for "you are mine." would be oeyä (mine) ngati (you) lu (be).  However, I could be wrong.


I'm afraid so.  We have heard directly from Karyu Pawl that the dative can be used to describe possession.  for example,

Lu fayswizaw oeru

Literally, "these arrows are to-me" -- these are my arrows.  Now, it is possible that oeyä can mean not only "my" but "mine"--in which case, this phrase could be more easily translated as, Nga lu oeyä--"you are mine."  But, until we hear from Karyu Pawl, we do know that the dative construction is an acceptable way to communicate this idea, even if it seems a bit cumbersome to an English speaker.

My understanding of that topic is that lu + dative creates the verb "to have".  Nga oeyä lu makes more sense to me, but now that you've said that perhaps it would be nice to have that checked.

I don't use quotes very often, so I apparently assumed the wrong thing about the use of san etc.

Irayo nìmun, I had not seen the thread with "to use" etc.  It would be nice to have clarification of the lu + dative vs. oeyä thing.

[Kì'eyawn]

Nga ke zene tsap'alute sivi, ma tsmukan.  I appreciate your help.  We are learning this language together, after all =)  Ngaru irayo seiyi oe, ma Lekeye'unga Au.  Eywa ngahu, ma oeyä 'eylan.

[AuLekye'ung]

Ma tsmuke,

Dative -ru indicates what the action is going to; the genitive -yä indicates possession.  Therefore, for "you are mine." would be oeyä (mine) ngati (you) lu (be).  However, I could be wrong.


I'm afraid so.  We have heard directly from Karyu Pawl that the dative can be used to describe possession.  for example,

Lu fayswizaw oeru

Literally, "these arrows are to-me" -- these are my arrows.  Now, it is possible that oeyä can mean not only "my" but "mine"--in which case, this phrase could be more easily translated as, Nga lu oeyä--"you are mine."  But, until we hear from Karyu Pawl, we do know that the dative construction is an acceptable way to communicate this idea, even if it seems a bit cumbersome to an English speaker.

You were correct; I have no idea where I got the oeyä thing from.  That's good to know.

Irayo for this...  interesting conversation, ulte Eywa ngahu, ma tsmuke.

[Kì'eyawn]

Ngaru irayo, ma tsmukan.  Fwa oe ngahu lì'fyat leNa'vi nerume 'awsiteng oeru teya si.  Eywa ngahu, ma 'eylan.