Srung sivi oer, rutxe

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì, ma smuk.

I need some help forming a somewhat complicated sentence.  Here's what i've got so far:
Ma Sempul, srake fìfya'o lu 'aw a ngal nolvew futa tsawìlä oe tivìran?
Ma Sempul, srake fì-fya'o lu 'aw a nga-l n<olv>ew fì'ut-a tsa'u-ìlä oe t<iv>ìran
VOC Father, [y/n] this-path be one SBRD you-ERG want<PFV.SBJ> this.thing-SBRD it-along i walk<SBJ>

Here's what i'm trying to say:

Spoiler

Father, is this the path you would have wanted me to walk?

[NeotrekkerZ]

Hey Tiger,

1.  I think you could get rid of 'aw.  It's a number anyway, not a pronoun.  Perhaps fì'u or just 'u instead?

2.  From A Collection we have that -ilv- is for past counterfactuals, so I think nilvew.

3.  Tsawìlä is confusing me a little.  I think you can get rid of it and the iv in tìran since it's a separate clause.

My version would then be:  Ma Sempul, srake fì'u lu fìfya'o a ngal nilvew futa oe tìran?

Translation:  Is this the you-would-have-wanted-[that]-I walk-path?

[Kì'eyawn]

Hey Tiger,

1.  I think you could get rid of 'aw.  It's a number anyway, not a pronoun.  Perhaps fì'u or just 'u instead?

Yeah, i think somehow i turned the sentence in my head into, "Is this path the one that you..." and subsequently confused myself.  Why make things more complicated than they really are...

2.  From A Collection we have that -ilv- is for past counterfactuals, so I think nilvew.

Good catch.  This is what happens when i don't keep an eye on my notes =P

3.  Tsawìlä is confusing me a little.  I think you can get rid of it and the iv in tìran since it's a separate clause.

My inspiration for that particular mess came from here.  But i think that use of tsaw etc. is only necessary if i'm married to keeping ìlä in there--in other words, "is this the path along which you wanted me to walk?"  But that's not the sentence i started with.  But if it were, do you think i understood that construction correctly?

My version would then be:  Ma Sempul, srake fì'u lu fìfya'o a ngal nilvew futa oe tìran?

Translation:  Is this the you-would-have-wanted-[that]-I walk-path?

Yeah, i'm a little shy about using 'u and its variants—i'm always afraid of being too broad with it.  But you're probably right.

Ngeyä srungìri ngaru irayo seiyi oe, ma 'eylan.  Eywa ngahu.

[NeotrekkerZ]

My inspiration for that particular mess came from here.  But i think that use of tsaw etc. is only necessary if i'm married to keeping ìlä in there--in other words, "is this the path along which you wanted me to walk?"  But that's not the sentence i started with.  But if it were, do you think i understood that construction correctly?

Ah much clearer now.  Yeah, I think that works.

Yeah, i'm a little shy about using 'u and its variants—i'm always afraid of being too broad with it.  But you're probably right.

Yeah, I almost didn't put in fì'u, but then I saw "this" in my translation and couldn't account for it any other way than other than "this thing."

EDIT:  Babbled a little there, should be Yeah, I almost didn't put in fì'u, but then I saw "this" in my translation and couldn't account for it any other way other than "this thing."

[omängum fra'uti]

You certainly do need the subjunctive in tìran as it is being used with the verb "new".  Even though the long form is in used, it still need it there.  However I'm not sure why you're using the subjunctive in "new".

Grammatically, tsawìlä is likely needed there, but I'd imagine contextually it would be understood so unnecessary.  However without it, it might come across as "Is this the manner you wanted me to walk?" (To which a Monty Python silly walk pops into my head.)

That said, I might actually reword things a little.  You know it's a path so it probably makes sense to use fìfya there, then fì'u as a conjunction...

So I'd probably have said it as...

Ma Sempul, srake fìfya lu fwa nga nolew oel tsawìlä tivìran
Father, is this path that which you wanted me to walk?

Alternatively, you could probably word it like this as well...
Ma Sempul, srake fìfya lu fya'o a nga nolew oel tsawìlä tivìran
Father, is this path the path which you wanted me to walk?

That said, "walk" in that sentence is being used metaphorically, not literally, so I'm not sure the Na'vi would understand that sentence in the same manner.  However lacking knowledge of how other languages might express that. I'm not sure I could express an alternative.

[NeotrekkerZ]

You certainly do need the subjunctive in tìran as it is being used with the verb "new".  Even though the long form is in used, it still need it there.

Duh, my mistake.  Thanks for that.

I think the intended use of the subjunctive is because of the conditional aspect of the clause.  If I understand it correctly, Tigermind has started down a path, but has not yet completed it, so there is the possibility of her going a different way.  She is asking if completing going down the path she has started is what was desired by her father, which as of the time of her statement is still a possibility, not a forgone conclusion, hence iv.

I like the fwa clause, but I'm thinking there should still be a futa in there too as what you wanted is a clause.

[omängum fra'uti]

New can be used either way with the same meaning

Oel new futa ngati tsive'a
Oe new ngati tsive'a

As far as the subjunctive in new...  Using srak there is enough of a conditional...  And the condition isn't on wanting her to follow a path, but on that being the path he wants her to follow.

[NeotrekkerZ]

New can be used either way with the same meaning

Oel new futa ngati tsive'a
Oe new ngati tsive'a

I agree with you regarding these examples, because the subject of both clauses is the same, but when you switch subjects I think you must have a futa.  Consider

Oe new nga kivä neto
Oel new futa nga kivä neto

In the second sentence it's clear:  "I want you to go away."  But in the first sentence you could also mean "you want me to go away."

The reason for this example is in your fwa sentence I think the oel should be oe as there is no direct object, just a prepositional phrase.

I also looked over all the examples of new X I could find, and unfortunately I could not find one that had a change of subject in the two clauses.  If you know of one, please let me know.

[omängum fra'uti]

I don't know of any specific example, but Frommer has indirectly stated that the subject in the subordinate can be different.

That's how I've been handling want, can, and must: via a simple, shorter structure, where the subject in the main clause is considered intransitive, and there's no overt subject in the subordinate clause if they're identical:

To add some confusion he did later say...

So in the sentences you asked about, Oe new pivlltxe is fine. In one with oel, though, insert futa.

But that was referring specifically to an example sentence where "Oel new pivlltxe" was asked about, and I believe that is saying that if you use "oel" (Hence using "new" transitively) then you need "futa", but it says nothing about the subject of the subordinate.

[Kì'eyawn]

Tewti, fìtìpängkxo txantsan leiu =)

Ma omängum fra'uti, the reason i used the subjunctive in new was that, as Neo correctly identified, i intended it to be a counterfactual:  So, the sentence might have continued, "Father, is this the path you would have wanted me to walk if you were still here?"  I blame the counterfactual thing on that discussion of the use of nìrangal a little while back.

Your point about walking a metaphorical path is well-taken; sometimes the English idiom is inescapable especially for a lowly monoglot like myself.

Mengaru irayo seiyi oe, ma mesmuk.  Eywa mengahu.

[omängum fra'uti]

Well just to reiterate my point there, it's not that he wants a path which could be counterfactual, it is the path you are taking being the same as the one he wants you to take that is counterfactual.

However that said, I wouldn't use the subjunctive in "lu" there either for two reasons.  The first is that when you are using "srak" you are asking if it is true, so there is no need to clarify that you are unsure if it is true.  If you were sure it was true, you wouldn't be asking.  (Rhetorical questions aside, which we do have a canon example of.)

But more to the point, I don't think we have a canon example of the subjunctive being used purely semantically like that.  Cases we've seen it used for counter-factual information, it's also performing some other role.

[Kì'eyawn]

Well just to reiterate my point there, it's not that he wants a path which could be counterfactual, it is the path you are taking being the same as the one he wants you to take that is counterfactual.

However that said, I wouldn't use the subjunctive in "lu" there either for two reasons.  The first is that when you are using "srak" you are asking if it is true, so there is no need to clarify that you are unsure if it is true.  If you were sure it was true, you wouldn't be asking.  (Rhetorical questions aside, which we do have a canon example of.)

But more to the point, I don't think we have a canon example of the subjunctive being used purely semantically like that.  Cases we've seen it used for counter-factual information, it's also performing some other role.

Okay, i think i see your point.  So, would the counterfactual <ilv> go in that second part of the sentence--the "if you were still here" part?

[NeotrekkerZ]

"If" clauses seem to me to still be slightly ambiguous.  In English you would say "if I were to go" where the "to be" is in the subjunctive, which makes sense as you are expressing a possibility.  But the terminator line (come with me if you want to live) K. Pawl translated as Txo nga new rivey, oehu which doesn't have "want" in the subjunctive as it does in English. 

That said, I think I would use iv (not ilv) for that clause as it seems more a present subjunctive to me.

[omängum fra'uti]

Be careful that you are not applying rules on subjunctive from other languages to Na'vi.  The biggest guide here is what usage we have from Karyu Pawl has used, which I don't think has anything quite like the usage here.

[NeotrekkerZ]

Naturally.  Looking at the canonical uses of <iv> though, we have it:

1.  To form the infinitive (after modals definitely; after other verbs presumably)
2.  In commands
3.  For "let" as in "let something happen (in the future)"
(If I missed any other use let me know)

Of these, the only thing that I think can be considered linguistically as a subjunctive would be (3).  And if that's the extent of its use in that way, then so be it.  But when you call something a subjunctive without further defining what the subjunctive is and give it other uses that are not traditionally associated with the subjunctive, then it I think it our duty to question its usage in every instance we can and use it as well as our own knowledge of the subjunctive extends.

I mean, he could have called it the letinco infix, but he opted for subjunctive.  There must be a reason why.

Personally, I'd take a definitive, categorized usage list of <iv> now over 100 new words.

[omängum fra'uti]

I agree with that last part.  The so called subjunctive gives me nightmares.

[wm.annis]

(If I missed any other use let me know)

http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php/Verb_syntax#The_Subjunctive

I mean, he could have called it the letinco infix, but he opted for subjunctive.  There must be a reason why.

The Na'vi subjunctive is highly grammaticalized.  That is, it is simply required in some syntactic structures, quite independent of any sense of uncertainty, doubt, or however one chooses to think of the subjunctive.  This is not actually all that different from the traditional use of the term subjunctive.  Ancient Greek is a good example.  In Homer, the subjunctive and something called the optative were used much more freely in a variety of situations.  By the time Athenians started to write down their plays, however, this freedom was largely gone, and the subjunctive was simply required in one place, but not another.  In many ways the subjunctive in the Romance languages is much the same — it's usually a requirement of  the grammar, not a personal estimation of the reality of a situation.

In the Language Log interview Frommer says that "verbs are inflected for tense, aspect, mood/dependency, and speaker attitude, but not for person or number."  His use of "mood/dependency" here is telling.  "Dependency" is simply a matter of syntax.  Calling this "subjunctive" isn't really a stretch.