Author Topic: "Chained" Inalienable Possession?  (Read 1028 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kame Ayyo’koti

  • Tute
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • us United States
  • Karma: 42
  • Poe a za’u sì kä
"Chained" Inalienable Possession?
« on: July 06, 2014, 11:44:54 am »
I suppose it might be obvious, but I've never seen an example, so I'll ask anyway: Is "chained" inalienable possession possible grammatically?

For example:
Oeri tsyokxìri ta’leng.
(Oe-ri tsyokx-ìri ta’leng)
"Your work is to discover your world, and then with all your heart give yourself to it."

Offline Tìtstewan

  • LearnNavi Zeykoyu
  • Toruk Makto
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 9881
  • de Germany
  • Karma: 324
  • Ke lu oeru kea krr krrtalun!
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: "Chained" Inalienable Possession?
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2014, 11:58:18 am »
This would make no sense. One cannot have two topics in one sentence, otherwise it's kinda confusing.
I would write:

Oeri tsyokxä ta'leng.
My hand's skin.

But such pattern isn't impossible, as we have:

Oe pamrel si ngar 'upxarer
I write a message to you.

This sentence have two datives, but in this case, it makes sense, because any other way of translation would make no sense. Maybe this would be also possible for your example, but there is something, I don't like. The skin is a part of the hand. As in Na'vi, one can't simple compound nouns to a new word like *tsyokxta'leng, I see [tsyokxä ta'leng] as a packet, owend by "me" - Oeri.

-| Dict-Na'vi.com | Na'viteri Files | FAQ | LM | Puk Pxaw 'Rrta | Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Offline Blue Elf

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5502
  • cz Czech Republic
  • Karma: 112
    • My attempt for blog
Re: "Chained" Inalienable Possession?
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2014, 01:21:05 pm »
I suppose it might be obvious, but I've never seen an example, so I'll ask anyway: Is "chained" inalienable possession possible grammatically?

For example:
Oeri tsyokxìri ta’leng.
(Oe-ri tsyokx-ìri ta’leng)
There's no rule which would allow two topicals in sentence. But your example is just fragment without any context, so I would use simply:
Ta'leng tsyokxä oeyä

to think more of topical, say us the whole sentence you want to construct. There would be more choices what could be used as topical.
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Offline Blue Elf

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5502
  • cz Czech Republic
  • Karma: 112
    • My attempt for blog
Re: "Chained" Inalienable Possession?
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2014, 01:24:15 pm »
But such pattern isn't impossible, as we have:

Oe pamrel si ngar 'upxarer
I write a message to you.
there's no connection between these two - that double dative IS possible does not mean that double topical could be possible too (similarly we do not have double agentive or patientive :))
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Offline Tìtstewan

  • LearnNavi Zeykoyu
  • Toruk Makto
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 9881
  • de Germany
  • Karma: 324
  • Ke lu oeru kea krr krrtalun!
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: "Chained" Inalienable Possession?
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2014, 01:31:00 pm »
Well, I mentioned that, because languages can be weird. But I pointed out, that double topical would make no sense. (btw, I didn't say that double dative would be impossible ;))

Hence, I mentioed this:
Oeri [tsyokxä ta'leng]
My [hand's skin]

Oeri is used as inalienable possession (the skin of the hand) in this sentence, which even which possess [hand's skin]. :)
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 04:14:36 pm by Tìtstewan »

-| Dict-Na'vi.com | Na'viteri Files | FAQ | LM | Puk Pxaw 'Rrta | Kem si fu kem rä'ä si, ke lu tìfmi. |-

Offline Tanri

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • cz Czech Republic
  • Karma: 25
  • Mìkam aysanhì tìranyu.
Re: "Chained" Inalienable Possession?
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2014, 02:33:06 am »
I see the point, but inalienable possession is used only when talking about something a person can (and usually must) have.
For example oeyri tsyokx, ngari ta’leng, pori menari...
I don't think that this can be extended to "thing vs. thing" relations. Obviously you can emphasise anything using topical, but not because of inalienable possession.

The skin color of your hand looks unhealthy to me.
IMHO can be:
’Opin ta’lengä tsyokxä ngeyä fkan oeru kelfpomtokx.
Ta’lengìri tsyokä ngeyä, ’opin fkan oeru kelfpomtokx.
...
however I'll probably never say two topicals like this:
Ngari tsyokxä ta’lengìri, ’opin fkan oeru kelfpomtokx.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 02:36:52 am by Tanri »
Anything published exlusively on Discord (and not in this forum) does not exist...

 

Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines | XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, LightStorm Entertainment or The Walt Disney Company.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi