First quote of, I hope, many...

[Swoka Swizaw]

Nìngay, krr le'ampi pxel tskxe lu. Ngian, ftawnemkrr le'ampi ke lu ulte zusawkrr letse'a ke lu. Ayoe ftawnemkrrti ayunilfa tsun tsive'a, slä ftawnemkrrti ke tsun 'ivampi. Ayoe zusawkrrti ke tsun tsive'a, slä zusawkrrti ngop letrr.

I hope that this is adequate. Hopefully, the meaning has not been lost. The translation was hindered slightly. I use as much "flowery" language as I can. I had another that I wanted to do, but was too complicated. Anyway, this is the first of many quotes of mine, as my knowledge of Na'vi grows. Critiques?

['Tsamsiyu]

That looks pretty damn good to me... although I'm probably not the best to examine, there are others that will be able to look deeper than me.

[omängum fra'uti]

If you're trying to use tskxe as a metaphor there, you would want to use na or pxel, not teng.  (No, I don't know the difference between na and pxel).  Also not sure why you said san krr sìk rather than just krr, which would have worked just fine there.  The rest, I didn't get the exact meaning you were translating from, but I certainly understood the meaning there.  A few comments though...

First is we have a word for future "zusawkrr", there's probably a similar word for past (Maybe following a similar idea husumkrr or ftawnemkrr) though it might be best to wait for such a word formally and just leave it as yesterday and tomorrow for now.  However, I would put both in the accusitive case where you use it...  "Ayoe ayunilfa tsun trramit tsive'a" for example.

Aside from those little things though it looks good!

[Swoka Swizaw]

If you're trying to use tskxe as a metaphor there, you would want to use na or pxel, not teng.  (No, I don't know the difference between na and pxel).  Also not sure why you said san krr sìk rather than just krr, which would have worked just fine there.  The rest, I didn't get the exact meaning you were translating from, but I certainly understood the meaning there.  A few comments though...

Yes, I am trying to "tskxe" as a metaphor - thanks, for the tip. The quotes around "krr" were to illustrate...well, yeah, I don't know.

First is we have a word for future "zusawkrr", there's probably a similar word for past (Maybe following a similar idea husumkrr or ftawnemkrr) though it might be best to wait for such a word formally and just leave it as yesterday and tomorrow for now.  However, I would put both in the accusitive case where you use it...  "Ayoe ayunilfa tsun trramit tsive'a" for example.

Aside from those little things though it looks good!

When we get a word for "past," I'll definitely use it. Also, why the accusative markers for the subjunctive mood?

[omängum fra'uti]

The subjunctive doesn't change the nature of the verb, it's still being used transitively, so what it being seen is the accusitive.

[Swoka Swizaw]

The subjunctive doesn't change the nature of the verb, it's still being used transitively, so what it being seen is the accusitive.

Alright. I thought that I had learned differently.

[omängum fra'uti]

What you're probably thinking of is how the ergative isn't used there...

Tk: Tsun oe tsat tsive'a
I can see

But really that's not the ergative not being used on oe, it's being implied as the subject of tsun.  That's two calauses...

Oe tsun / oel tsat tsive'a

But Na'vi loves dropping the subject if it's already contextually understood (IE if it's still the same subject).  So you drop the oel and let it implicitly use the already stated subject.  This becomes more readily apparently if you swap the order.  (Assuming I'm correct about what happens, which I'm pretty sure I am.)

Oel tsat tsive'a tsun.

It still means the same thing, slightly different intonation/emphasis but otherwise identical meaning.  However now the wayward ergative shows up, because tsive'a has a subject, and tsun is using the contextual subject.