[Tìk sì Tseyn] can make something

[Lisa]

I'm starting my next Tìk sì Tseyn translation and I think I'm creeping into verb infix territory.   Scary....

The line is "Mother can make something".    Would I use a verb infix since the "can make something" implies a future possibility?   Would I use <ay> since there isn't any specific time indicator other than the generic future?     And since Mother is the subject, would I add the ergative case?   Is the "something" the object?  Would that get the accusative?

    Sa'nok-il tsun s<ay>i  'uo-ti  --->   Sa'nokil tsun sayi 'uoti?
     Mother can make something

Is this correct?   Sa'nokil looks a bit weird.... 


Irayo!

[Payä Tìrol]

I think si needs an <iv> infix, and that sentence doesn't feel like it's implying anything time-wise, so <ay> is probably unnecessary. Also, tsun is a Modal verb, and takes the Absolutive as its subject.
Sa'nok tsun s<iv>i 'uo-ru
Mother can make something.

... I think I'm still missing something, that doesn't feel right... brb

['Oma Tirea]

Sa'nokil tsun sayi 'uoti

If I were to translate that, I would probably get "Mother will be able to do something."  Why?

The main issue appears to lie within the "sayi," as it primarily means "do."  Also, with the <ay> infix, it carries a future possibility, and the original sentence you wanted to translate doesn't seem to specify tense.  It's probably better if "ngop" is used instead, and like this:

Sa'nokil tsun ngivop 'uoti.

[Kä'eng]

I agree that ngop is more appropriate. Also, the suffix on the agent should be -ìl, not -il.

Sa'nok-ìl tsun ng<iv>op 'uo-ti would be correct. One minor stylistic issue: Usually at the end of a sentence, you'll see the -t or -it form of the patientive suffix. I don't think I've ever seen Frommer use -ti at the end (someone please correct me if this is wrong). So: Sa'nok-ìl tsun ng<iv>op 'uo-t.

['Oma Tirea]

I agree that ngop is more appropriate. Also, the suffix on the agent should be -ìl, not -il.

Good catch.

Sa'nok-ìl tsun ng<iv>op 'uo-ti would be correct. One minor stylistic issue: Usually at the end of a sentence, you'll see the -t or -it form of the patientive suffix. I don't think I've ever seen Frommer use -ti at the end (someone please correct me if this is wrong). So: Sa'nok-ìl tsun ng<iv>op 'uo-t.

Of course, it is a matter of preference.  I would say "ti," but it can be spelled either way.  Whichever fko prefers...

[Payä Tìrol]

NiaN says that the subjects of zene and tsun don't take the Ergative, is that not always the case? /confused.

[Kä'eng]

NiaN says that the subjects of zene and tsun don't take the Ergative, is that not always the case? /confused.

No, NiaN is correct there, I just forgot. Good catch.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I agree that ngop is more appropriate. Also, the suffix on the agent should be -ìl, not -il.

Sa'nok-ìl tsun ng<iv>op 'uo-ti would be correct. One minor stylistic issue: Usually at the end of a sentence, you'll see the -t or -it form of the patientive suffix. I don't think I've ever seen Frommer use -ti at the end (someone please correct me if this is wrong). So: Sa'nok-ìl tsun ng<iv>op 'uo-t.

Nope. Payä was right (albeit in a slightly wrong way), sa'nok should be in the nominative (not absolutive ma Payä, the absolutive is a case that includes the accusative and nominative) and not have a case ending because all modal verbs (when using the short modal form) are intransitive.

And you'll never see the -it ending on a noun that ends in a vowel, it's either -t or -ti and those have both been used at the end of sentences. There is no rule as to when to use -t over -ti, it is purely a stylistic choice.

[Payä Tìrol]

Ah, I was going off what I read on Wikipedia (awesome, I know), in that Tripartite and Erg-Abs languages use the Abs case for the subject of intransitive verbs, and since Sa'nok isn't marked with an ending in this case, I just assumed it fell under that pattern.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Hmm. Looking it up, that seems ok actually. I'd only heard it used in the context of erg-abs languages. I generally call it the intransitive or nominative case though.

[Payä Tìrol]

Yeah, intransitive was the other case name I saw for it, perhaps that would be more clear.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

It's not great though because they also use that case with adpositions and si verbs.

[Kemaweyan]

Can make something - perhaps tsun kemo sivi

[Carborundum]

Can make something - perhaps tsun kemo sivi

Unless I'm mistaken, that would mean "can do something".

[Kemaweyan]

Then perhaps tsun ngivop 'uot, as already wrote ll.sxkxawng

[Lisa]

Sa'nokil tsun sayi 'uoti

If I were to translate that, I would probably get "Mother will be able to do something."  Why?

The main issue appears to lie within the "sayi," as it primarily means "do."  Also, with the <ay> infix, it carries a future possibility, and the original sentence you wanted to translate doesn't seem to specify tense.  It's probably better if "ngop" is used instead, and like this:

Sa'nokil tsun ngivop 'uoti.

Irayo, ma ll.sxkxawng,  this makes sense to me!    And makes a better sentence. 

I was getting "can make" mixed up with "will make", and assuming that because Mother can make something, she would make it. Which, duh, is not always the case.