complex translation

[Kì'eyawn]

So, i was looking at this quote, and thinking it would be great to translate because the vocab is simple but the syntax is complex.  You get cool points if you know where the quote is from.

Pelun? Nga oer perängawm san pelun?  Fa fra'u a oe salmi fti ngati munge fìtseng, fa fra'u a oe soli fti si futa nga a'usì'awn fìtseng, nga ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

Spoiler

Why?  You're asking me, "why"?  After everything i did to get you here, after everything i've done to keep you here, how could you possibly not understand that you're mine?

Pelun?  Nga      oe-r(u)  p<er><äng>awm  san     pelun?
Why?   You.NTR i-DAT    ask<IPFV><PEJ>  quote  why?  

Fa     fra'u         a      oe     s<a<l>m>i      fti   nga-t(i)  munge fìtseng,
With everything ATTR i.NTR do<PST><PFV> for  you-ACC bring   here,

fa     fra'u         a      oe     s<ol>i    fti  si      futa nga   a-'<us>ì'awn        fìtseng,
with everything ATTR i.NTR do<PFV> for make that you ATTR-stay<PART> here,

nga        ke   tslam        futa lu  nga       oer(u) fwa tsun l<iv><äng>u    letsunslu fyape?
You.NTR NEG understand that be you.NTR i-DAT  this can be<SUB><PEJ> possible how?

i appreciate any feedback you can give--please especially let me know if the grammar is okay, because it seems a little tortured to me.

Irayo, ma oeyä eylan, ulte Eywa ayngahu.

Edit:  Fixed a verb or two.  Measure twice, cut once...
Edit, part the second:  You'd think i'd have my pronouns down by now.

[AuLekye'ung]

I'm coming up with:

Why?  You ask why I say (this?)?  With everything that I do for you here, with everything I did so I could stay here, you don't understand that I could possibly be (one of you?)?

If that's correct, would it be right before the RDA attacks Hometree?  When Jake is having to explain that he knew all along?

[Kì'eyawn]

I'm coming up with:

Why?  You ask why I say (this?)?  With everything that I do for you here, with everything I did so I could stay here, you don't understand that I could possibly be (one of you?)?

If that's correct, would it be right before the RDA attacks Hometree?  When Jake is having to explain that he knew all along?

Well, you actually managed to catch a pronoun gaff--i've been doing that a lot...  It looks like i'm on the right track, though.

As to the trivia aspect, it's actually not a quote from Avatar at all; it's from a television show...  Let me go back and fix my pronoun mistake, though...

Eywa ngahu

[AuLekye'ung]

Eh.  If it was from Avatar that's where it would probably be.  Definitely cheating, using outside media.

As I haven't memorized the script it seemed that that was where that quote would have fit.

[AuLekye'ung]

Now I'm faced with the question of, is fti an actual word?  I have been unable to find it anywhere.

[Kì'eyawn]

Now I'm faced with the question of, is fti an actual word?  I have been unable to find it anywhere.

Good catch, it's not.  I was having a dyslexic moment, or something.  The word i wanted was fpi.  I'll fix that now.

The original quote and the translation breakdown are behind the Spoiler cut.
Irayo, ulte Eywa ngahu.

[Kì'eyawn]

So, i was looking at this quote, and thinking it would be great to translate because the vocab is simple but the syntax is complex.  You get cool points if you know where the quote is from.

Pelun? Nga oer perängawm san pelun?  Fa fra'u a oe salmi fpi ngati munge fìtseng, fa fra'u a oe soli fpi si futa nga a'usì'awn fìtseng, nga ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

Spoiler

Why?  You're asking me, "why"?  After everything i did to get you here, after everything i've done to keep you here, how can you possibly not understand that you're mine?

Pelun?  Nga      oe-r(u)  p<er><äng>awm  san     pelun?
Why?   You.NTR i-DAT    ask<IPFV><PEJ>  quote  why?  

Fa     fra'u         a      oe     s<a<l>m>i      fpi   nga-t(i)  munge fìtseng,
With everything ATTR i.NTR do<PST><PFV> for  you-ACC bring   here,

fa     fra'u         a      oe     s<ol>i    fpi  si      futa nga   a-'<us>ì'awn        fìtseng,
with everything ATTR i.NTR do<PFV> for make that you ATTR-stay<PART> here,

nga        ke   tslam        futa lu  nga       oer(u) fwa tsun l<iv><äng>u    letsunslu fyape?
You.NTR NEG understand that be you.NTR i-DAT  this can be<SUB><PEJ> possible how?

i appreciate any feedback you can give--please especially let me know if the grammar is okay, because it seems a little tortured to me.

Irayo, ma oeyä eylan, ulte Eywa ayngahu.

Edit:  Fixed a verb or two.  Measure twice, cut once...
Edit, part the second:  You'd think i'd have my pronouns down by now.
Edit...again:  Third time's a charm?

[Nawmaritie]

So, i was looking at this quote, and thinking it would be great to translate because the vocab is simple but the syntax is complex.  You get cool points if you know where the quote is from.

Pelun? Nga oer perängawm san pelun?  Fa fra'u a oe salmi fpi ngati munge fìtseng, fa fra'u a oe soli fpi si futa nga a'usì'awn fìtseng, nga ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

Spoiler

Why?  You're asking me, "why"?  After everything i did to get you here, after everything i've done to keep you here, how can you possibly not understand that you're mine?

Pelun?  Nga      oe-r(u)  p<er><äng>awm  san     pelun?
Why?   You.NTR i-DAT    ask<IPFV><PEJ>  quote  why?  

Fa     fra'u         a      oe     s<a<l>m>i      fpi   nga-t(i)  munge fìtseng,
With everything ATTR i.NTR do<PST><PFV> for  you-ACC bring   here,

fa     fra'u         a      oe     s<ol>i    fpi  si      futa nga   a-'<us>ì'awn        fìtseng,
with everything ATTR i.NTR do<PFV> for make that you ATTR-stay<PART> here,

nga        ke   tslam        futa lu  nga       oer(u) fwa tsun l<iv><äng>u    letsunslu fyape?
You.NTR NEG understand that be you.NTR i-DAT  this can be<SUB><PEJ> possible how?

i appreciate any feedback you can give--please especially let me know if the grammar is okay, because it seems a little tortured to me.

Irayo, ma oeyä eylan, ulte Eywa ayngahu.
[...]

Kaltxì ma 'eylan,

first off, I had no idea where this quote could be from, but then again, even if I had heard it, it wouldn't have been in English.
(google is cheating so I won't say it)

For the grammar: (just my opinion )

Pelun? Nga oer perängawm san pelun?  

I'm not sure about this, but I think that pawm is transitive with the person being asked as the object.
You're using only san which is according to Canon okay in the end of the speech, but you continue with the next sentence, so it could be a bit unclear that the "direct speech" part is finished, therefore I would use sìk also

Spoiler

-> Pelun? Ngal oeti perängawm san pelun sìk?

Fa fra'u a oe salmi fpi ngati munge fìtseng

According to the dictionary fpi is an adposition. I don't think that it can be used as a conjugation.
While fa has not directly the meaning you're after I think it should be okay, because we don't have a different word yet.
si is as far as we know not a real verb. I think kem si could be used here

Spoiler

-> Fa fra'u a oe kem salmi mivunge ngati fitseng

fa fra'u a oe soli fpi si futa nga a'usì'awn fìtseng

Same thing as above with the fa and the fpi
But the subject of the last dependent clause changes, so it's a bit complicated, because kem si is by definition intransitive, so no futa.
I'm not sure whether I get the meaning of the sentence correctly, as I'm not really a fan of that show, but to express:
     (1)  keep (and not be thrown out) = you can stay:  I'd use fte - so that   you can stay here - fte nga tsun 'ivì'awn
     (2)  keep (although you don't want to)= you must stay: fte nga zene 'ivì'awn
I don't know much about the show, but I guess I'll go with (2)

Spoiler

-> fa fra'u a oe kem soli fte nga zene 'ivì'awn fitseng

nga ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

nga should be in the ERG, because futa = fì'ut a -> AKK, object
I think that the rest is okay, although I (personally) would swap it around, but that's just me.



In complete:

Spoiler

Pelun? Ngal oeti perängawm san pelun sìk? Fa fra'u a oe kem salmi mivunge ngati fitseng, fa fra'u a oe kem soli fte nga zene 'ivì'awn fitseng.
Ngal ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

As I said, just my humble opinion on how I would solve this
no guarantees (sp??) that it's correct.

Kìyevame

[AuLekye'ung]

That would certainly be why I was translating it so weirdly.

[AuLekye'ung]

Ngal ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?
how could you possibly not understand that you're mine?

I translated the Na'vi part to:

You-ACC NEG-tslam this thing which be you I-DAT this which can be-SUB-NEG can how?

I probably translated fwa wrong, and I didn't get the letsunslu compound, but I don't see how that can translate into the English translation.

Did I just translate horribly?  Where is "possibly" coming from?

[Nawmaritie]

Ngal ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?
how could you possibly not understand that you're mine?

I translated the Na'vi part to:

You-ACC NEG-tslam this thing which be you I-DAT this which can be-SUB-NEG can how?

I probably translated fwa wrong, and I didn't get the letsunslu compound, but I don't see how that can translate into the English translation.

Did I just translate horribly?  Where is "possibly" coming from?

This is why I said, that I'd swap it around a little.

nga ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

Here are actually three sentence:
(with futa = fì'ut a    and fwa = fì'u a)

Fyape tsun livängu letsunslu fì'u a	ngal ke tslam     fì'ut a	lu nga oeru
How    can   be-SUB-NEG possible this ( which )	you not understand this ( which)	you are mine

I put the last part of the original sentence first. It's no problem to swap it around and put the first part to the back (as in the original sentence) as long as the fwa goes in between the sentences.


What is actually the adverb of letsunslu: - possible
is it nì-letsunslu or nìtsunslu ?  

[AuLekye'ung]

Ahhh, I found letsunslu!  That was the vocab I was missing in the sentence.

I was trying to do le-tsun-slu, Or, adjective deriving infix-can-become.  That made no sense at all.

And the sentence structure was a little hard to understand how it was written.  Flipped made much more sense.

What is the meaning difference between fwa and futa?

[Nawmaritie]

[...]

What is the meaning difference between fwa and futa?

There is actullay no real difference in the meaning of fwa and futa

it's just that    fì'utAKK a    so it can work as the object for transitive verbs. (which means the subject hast to be in the ERG).
See above: ngal ke tslam futa ...


fwa = fì'u a ... so the "thing" is in the nominativ (or no case at all, whatever you prefer)
One can't use "futa" in the sentences around the verb lu, because it has no object and therefore no Akkusativ. I don't know, whether there are any other verbs where "fwa" can be applied.


Other than that both are "thing (which)" XD


I hope it's understandable, I really suck at explaining stuff -.-'

[AuLekye'ung]

Ahhh, irayo.

Tslolam.

Also, in salmi, isn't that do/make-past-past perfective?  do/make + did/made + did/made(finished)?

It should just be soli.  Otherwise it's doubling the past tense, since <am> is past and <ol> is past (finished).

[Kì'eyawn]

So, i was looking at this quote, and thinking it would be great to translate because the vocab is simple but the syntax is complex.  You get cool points if you know where the quote is from.

Pelun? Nga oer perängawm san pelun?  Fa fra'u a oe salmi fpi ngati munge fìtseng, fa fra'u a oe soli fpi si futa nga a'usì'awn fìtseng, nga ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

Spoiler

Why?  You're asking me, "why"?  After everything i did to get you here, after everything i've done to keep you here, how can you possibly not understand that you're mine?

Pelun?  Nga      oe-r(u)  p<er><äng>awm  san     pelun?
Why?   You.NTR i-DAT    ask<IPFV><PEJ>  quote  why?  

Fa     fra'u         a      oe     s<a<l>m>i      fpi   nga-t(i)  munge fìtseng,
With everything ATTR i.NTR do<PST><PFV> for  you-ACC bring   here,

fa     fra'u         a      oe     s<ol>i    fpi  si      futa nga   a-'<us>ì'awn        fìtseng,
with everything ATTR i.NTR do<PFV> for make that you ATTR-stay<PART> here,

nga        ke   tslam        futa lu  nga       oer(u) fwa tsun l<iv><äng>u    letsunslu fyape?
You.NTR NEG understand that be you.NTR i-DAT  this can be<SUB><PEJ> possible how?

i appreciate any feedback you can give--please especially let me know if the grammar is okay, because it seems a little tortured to me.

Irayo, ma oeyä eylan, ulte Eywa ayngahu.
[...]

Kaltxì ma 'eylan,

first off, I had no idea where this quote could be from, but then again, even if I had heard it, it wouldn't have been in English.
(google is cheating so I won't say it)

Thank you for not cheating =)  even if you watch the show, it's probably still an obscure quote; but it's said by my favorite character, and i saw that scene again recently, which was what made me think i should try translating it.  You still get cool points for helping me with my grammar.

For the grammar: (just my opinion )

Pelun? Nga oer perängawm san pelun?  

I'm not sure about this, but I think that pawm is transitive with the person being asked as the object.
You're using only san which is according to Canon okay in the end of the speech, but you continue with the next sentence, so it could be a bit unclear that the "direct speech" part is finished, therefore I would use sìk also

Spoiler

-> Pelun? Ngal oeti perängawm san pelun sìk?

I don't know about pawm; i mean, it happens in English that "you ask me"--but what's really being asked (that is, the object receiving the action of asking) is the question itself.  Since you could reword this so that "you" ask a question (the object) "of me," or "you" pose a question "to me," i'm not sure i agree with you.  But i could definitely be wrong.

There were two reasons i didn't use sìk:  First, because i thought the pause between the end of this sentence and the start of the next would be enough of a cue that the quoted speech was finished; and second, because i liked the repetition of the pelun at the end of the sentence--it fits the organization of the quote in the original English, and is just...aesthetically pleasing to me =)

Fa fra'u a oe salmi fpi ngati munge fìtseng

According to the dictionary fpi is an adposition. I don't think that it can be used as a conjugation.

Yeah, i'm not entirely clear on the use of the adpositions yet, so this is up in the air.

...si is as far as we know not a real verb. I think kem si could be used here

Spoiler

-> Fa fra'u a oe kem salmi mivunge ngati fitseng

I was guessing with my use of si here.  I know that the French verb faire can be used somewhat like si, so i... got creative.  I don't know kem si; where did you find that verb?

fa fra'u a oe soli fpi si futa nga a'usì'awn fìtseng

Same thing as above with the fa and the fpi
But the subject of the last dependent clause changes, so it's a bit complicated, because kem si is by definition intransitive, so no futa.
I'm not sure whether I get the meaning of the sentence correctly, as I'm not really a fan of that show, but to express:
     (1)  keep (and not be thrown out) = you can stay:  I'd use fte - so that   you can stay here - fte nga tsun 'ivì'awn
     (2)  keep (although you don't want to)= you must stay: fte nga zene 'ivì'awn
I don't know much about the show, but I guess I'll go with (2)

Spoiler

-> fa fra'u a oe kem soli fte nga zene 'ivì'awn fitseng

Yes, it's definitely in the second sense   Although, personally, if i were to take the translation in your direction, i might instead say something that translates to "you cannot go/leave" instead of "you must stay."  Your suggestion makes it sound like he arranged it so that she needed to stay; but it's more that he made it impossible for her to go.  Just a thought.

nga ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

nga should be in the ERG, because futa = fì'ut a -> AKK, object

Ah yes, good point; i still forget my cases a lot.  Good catch.

Irayo ma 'eylan; you've been a great help to me. Eywa ngahu.

[Kì'eyawn]

...nga ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

Here are actually three sentence:
(with futa = fì'ut a    and fwa = fì'u a)

Fyape tsun livängu letsunslu fì'u a	ngal ke tslam     fì'ut a	lu nga oeru
How    can   be-SUB-NEG possible this ( which )	you not understand this ( which)	you are mine

I put the last part of the original sentence first. It's no problem to swap it around and put the first part to the back (as in the original sentence) as long as the fwa goes in between the sentences.

Wow, i like this a lot better than what i did.  I'm still not entirely confident using futa/fwa/a, so i had some trouble figuring out what the phrase order should be.

What is actually the adverb of letsunslu: - possible
is it nì-letsunslu or nìtsunslu ?  

I dunno; that's why i went around it and reworked the sentence without it

Irayo, ma 'eylan.  Again, you're very helpful. Eywa ngahu.

[Kì'eyawn]

Ahhh, irayo.

Tslolam.

Also, in salmi, isn't that do/make-past-past perfective?  do/make + did/made + did/made(finished)?

It should just be soli.  Otherwise it's doubling the past tense, since <am> is past and <ol> is past (finished).

I did that because the phrase that contains salmi is describing a completed action that took place farther back in time than the events in the next phrase (in which i did just use soli.  And, as far as i know, perfective/imperfective doesn't refer to a specific time frame, although the perfective by itself can be understood to mean a now-completed event, whereas the imperfective alone suggests an event that is current and ongoing.  And actually, i'm flirting with the idea of changing that second verb to sarmi to suggest that the events began in the past but are ongoing, but i'm not sure that's a correct usage of that conjugation.

But, in any case, i'll repeat the qualifier i've now used countless times throughout this forum:  I'm not a linguist.  

Eywa ngahu, ma 'eylan.

[AuLekye'ung]

I did that because the phrase that contains salmi is describing a completed action that took place farther back in time than the events in the next phrase (in which i did just use soli.  And, as far as i know, perfective/imperfective doesn't refer to a specific time frame, although the perfective by itself can be understood to mean a now-completed event, whereas the imperfective alone suggests an event that is current and ongoing.  And actually, i'm flirting with the idea of changing that second verb to sarmi to suggest that the events began in the past but are ongoing, but i'm not sure that's a correct usage of that conjugation.

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.

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'm done with this, irayo to you tiger for creating this interesting thread, and irayo to nawmaritie for the explanations regarding some of the issues I was having.

Eywa ngahu.

[Kì'eyawn]

I'm done with this, irayo to you tiger for creating this interesting thread, and irayo to nawmaritie for the explanations regarding some of the issues I was having.

Eywa ngahu.

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

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?

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.

[Nawmaritie]

For the grammar: (just my opinion )

Pelun? Nga oer perängawm san pelun?  

I'm not sure about this, but I think that pawm is transitive with the person being asked as the object.
You're using only san which is according to Canon okay in the end of the speech, but you continue with the next sentence, so it could be a bit unclear that the "direct speech" part is finished, therefore I would use sìk also

Spoiler

-> Pelun? Ngal oeti perängawm san pelun sìk?

I don't know about pawm; i mean, it happens in English that "you ask me"--but what's really being asked (that is, the object receiving the action of asking) is the question itself.  Since you could reword this so that "you" ask a question (the object) "of me," or "you" pose a question "to me," i'm not sure i agree with you.  But i could definitely be wrong.

Yeah, I know, that threw me around a little bit. You can reword it in German, too, but the person that is asked remains in the Akkusativ. If one asks with the noun+verb combination, it's the same as in English (pose a question), just with a naked Dativ (no "to").


Okay, this took me an hour now, but I found it: the verb "ask" has two possible objects. The recipient of the question is actually the "indirect object", the question that is asked is the "direct object" and can be replaced by the actual question. Both are at least in German and in English (as far as I can tell from my books) Akkusative.
What does this make out of this sentence above? I have no idea. Can one even give "-ti" to two objects?

I think I'm gonna ask that in the grammar section.

There were two reasons i didn't use sìk:  First, because i thought the pause between the end of this sentence and the start of the next would be enough of a cue that the quoted speech was finished; and second, because i liked the repetition of the pelun at the end of the sentence--it fits the organization of the quote in the original English, and is just...aesthetically pleasing to me =)

Ah okay, that makes sense, if there's a pause between that and the next sentence

...si is as far as we know not a real verb. I think kem si could be used here

Spoiler

-> Fa fra'u a oe kem salmi mivunge ngati fitseng

I was guessing with my use of si here.  I know that the French verb faire can be used somewhat like si, so i... got creative.  I don't know kem si; where did you find that verb?

Actually, I don't remember, where exactly I have it from. I just saw that *kem is still marked * in Taronyu's dictionary.
It's used quite a bit, and I think someone explained it to me once.
Apparently it's from kempe ... "kempe si nga?" - what are you doing?

...nga ke tslam futa lu nga oeru fwa tsun livängu letsunslu fyape?

Here are actually three sentence:
(with futa = fì'ut a    and fwa = fì'u a)

Fyape tsun livängu letsunslu fì'u a	ngal ke tslam     fì'ut a	lu nga oeru
How    can   be-SUB-NEG possible this ( which )	you not understand this ( which)	you are mine

I put the last part of the original sentence first. It's no problem to swap it around and put the first part to the back (as in the original sentence) as long as the fwa goes in between the sentences.

Wow, i like this a lot better than what i did.  I'm still not entirely confident using futa/fwa/a, so i had some trouble figuring out what the phrase order should be.

Irayo