... san... san... sík... sík. ?

[Pam (P.A.'li makto)]

Tìpawm:

Basic sentence is: Never say that Na'vi language does not exist!
In my translation: Kawkrr rä'ä peng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi sìk!

As far as I know, sìk can be omitted when at the end of the sentence. So it also can be something like this:
Kawkrr rä'ä peng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi!

Let's go further: I told him never to say that Na'vi language does not exist.
Maybe: Oe poleng poru san kawkrr rä'ä peng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi.
Since I omitted both sìks at the end of the sentence.

Now, what if I want to keep both of them, because I like it?
Can I say: Oe poleng poru san kawkrr rä'ä peng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi sìk sìk.  ?


Sorry, if it was ever discussed before. 

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

well, I don't see what's the problem in 2 "sìk"s, but it does look awkward to me. perhaps leave just one "sìk" or omit them both. or you can use futa (indirect speech), although direct speech is always better.

[Sireayä mokri]

I, too, think that stylistically two sìks look rather awkward.

[Pam (P.A.'li makto)]

I, too, think that stylistically two sìks look rather awkward.

That's exactly why I asked it! But is it correct or not? Can two sìks occur next to each other or not? Theoretically...
And what about the other parts of the sentence? Being quite long, I'm not sure about its being correct.
Thanks, guys, for the effort!

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

as I said above, I don't see any grammatical problems with it.

[Plumps]

or you can use futa (indirect speech), although direct speech is always better.

There is no indirect speech in Na’vi

Ma P.A.’li, I’d say your grammar is correct – I would maybe use plltxe instead of the ‘don’t say ‘xyz’’ but otherwise it looks fine to me. I don’t know about these double ‘air-quotes’. It’s an interesting question.

edit: typo

[Pam (P.A.'li makto)]

I would may use plltxe instead of the ‘don’t say ‘xyz’’

I thought we use plltxe for speak, and peng for say. 
How is it now?

[Plumps]

I would may use plltxe instead of the ‘don’t say ‘xyz’’

I thought we use plltxe for speak, and peng for say. 
How is it now?

Well, you’re of course right. The thing is that we don’t have a 1:1 word for ‘say’ and it seems to me that a lot of times where we would use ‘say’ the Na’vi use plltxe. I don’t say your decision is wrong I’m just associating peng too strongly with ‘tell’ in the sense of ‘tell a story’. If you think it fits better in your context of what you want to say, by all means, use it

[Sireayä mokri]

There is no indirect speech in Na’vi

I remember Pawl saying

As I think everyone knows by now, Na’vi prefers direct to indirect speech.

which implies that it's completely forbidden.

[Tanri]

There is a little difference between "preferred" and "forbidden", kefyak?

[Pam (P.A.'li makto)]

I would may use plltxe instead of the ‘don’t say ‘xyz’’

I thought we use plltxe for speak, and peng for say. 
How is it now?

Well, you’re of course right. The thing is that we don’t have a 1:1 word for ‘say’ and it seems to me that a lot of times where we would use ‘say’ the Na’vi use plltxe. I don’t say your decision is wrong I’m just associating peng too strongly with ‘tell’ in the sense of ‘tell a story’. If you think it fits better in your context of what you want to say, by all means, use it

Srungìri ngeyä oe irayo seiyi nìngay, ma tsmukan!
ta Pam

[Blue Elf]

Let's go further: I told him never to say that Na'vi language does not exist.
Maybe: Oe poleng poru san kawkrr rä'ä peng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi.
Since I omitted both sìks at the end of the sentence.

Now, what if I want to keep both of them, because I like it?
Can I say: Oe poleng poru san kawkrr rä'ä peng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi sìk sìk.  ?

As others already said - gramatically it seems all correct. There's also no problem in written text. But I'm afraid that in speech it can make listener confused. After "san" he can expect "sìk", but another "san" comes, so he can expect that first direct speech ended before second "san", as there is no rule, if direct speech can be nested one into another.
And what about more complex nesting like  san... san.. sìk.. san ... sìk... sìk ? I think it is better to avoid any kind of nesting:
Oe poleng poru san kawkrr rä'ä peng futa ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi (sìk).
Oe poleng poru fte kawkrr ke piveng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi (sìk).

[Ftxavanga Txe′lan]

There is no indirect speech in Na’vi

I remember Pawl saying

As I think everyone knows by now, Na’vi prefers direct to indirect speech.

which implies that it's completely forbidden.

That's interesting, thank you.

[Tirea Aean]

There is a little difference between "preferred" and "forbidden", kefyak?

as in uses direct instead of indirect. I get the feeling that using indirect speech is just not right with Na'vi.

sìk sìk is grammatically correct, I tihnk, but it does sound a tiny bit strange to me. something about closing only one of them off seems kinda borderline(IMO ONLY), I personally would leave off both sìk.

Let's go further: I told him never to say that Na'vi language does not exist.
Maybe: Oe poleng poru san kawkrr rä'ä peng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi.
Since I omitted both sìks at the end of the sentence.

Now, what if I want to keep both of them, because I like it?
Can I say: Oe poleng poru san kawkrr rä'ä peng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi sìk sìk.  ?

As others already said - gramatically it seems all correct. There's also no problem in written text. But I'm afraid that in speech it can make listener confused. After "san" he can expect "sìk", but another "san" comes, so he can expect that first direct speech ended before second "san", as there is no rule, if direct speech can be nested one into another.
And what about more complex nesting like  san... san.. sìk.. san ... sìk... sìk ? I think it is better to avoid any kind of nesting:
Oe poleng poru san kawkrr rä'ä peng futa ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi (sìk).
Oe poleng poru fte kawkrr ke piveng san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi (sìk).

I dont know about useing fte... Again, I'd rather not use futa with peng... how about ätxäle si tsnì?

I agree, too much nesting(more than one-in-one, IMO) is just way confusing.

Also, precisely this:

I would may use plltxe instead of the ‘don’t say ‘xyz’’

I thought we use plltxe for speak, and peng for say. 
How is it now?

Well, you’re of course right. The thing is that we don’t have a 1:1 word for ‘say’ and it seems to me that a lot of times where we would use ‘say’ the Na’vi use plltxe. I don’t say your decision is wrong I’m just associating peng too strongly with ‘tell’ in the sense of ‘tell a story’. If you think it fits better in your context of what you want to say, by all means, use it

[omängum fra'uti]

It is also grammatically correct and possible, would you care to and would the other person to whom you are speaking, being that they have to comprehend what you want to say, be able to follow what you are saying, in English, and I am sure many other languages, given that, while English is a somewhat odd language, it is certainly not wholly unique in any grammatical aspect, to nest clauses.

But that doesn't mean that sentence is easy to follow in writing, and even less so if spoken.

Of course, that says nothing grammatically about nested san...sìk.  Just that if it were used (grammatically or not) it could get confusing.

But here's something else...  We have an example of "peng" being used for indirect-like speech.  "Ayolo'ru alahe peng ziva'u" and "For peng syeraw toruk makto".  While that part of the movie dialog was heavily edited to shorten the Na'vi and another part did lose the "san...sìk", the impression I got from Frommer was the part with "peng" did not have the san...sìk.

So it's possible that it could just be *Oe poru poleng kawkrr rä'ä plltxe san ke fkeytok lì'fya leNa'vi.  However, that idea leaves a bit of an uncomfortable semantic overlap between peng and plltxe, with different grammatical forms of each.  Consider...

He said to me, "Leave!" - Po oeru poltxe san hivum!
He told me to leave. - *Po oeru poleng hivum.

One of the many outstanding questions.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

I don't think removing san sìks is grammatically correct. however, the Na'vi might have developed themselves a slang like in all languages (although I'm not sure Tsu'tey would use it in that time).