Regarding 'Lu' (Is, Am, Being)

Started by Julian Julian, December 22, 2009, 11:39:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Julian Julian

I just had a general question on the grammatical placement of 'lu'.

Here are the examples I've made:

Oe fteria lu Na'vi (I am studying Na'vi)

Oe lu fteria Na'vi (Same translation I think)

So my question is which placement is correct? Is the subject indicated before the verb? Does it even matter either which way? What the dickens is going on here? :)

I'm not even sure if I have any more flaws, but I'd love any help possible. Irayo!

Nume fpi sänume

So far as ive learned, it doesnt matter too much. I would guess it matters if you have multiple subject/multiple verb instances, but for smaller bits like that, i think either way is fine.

omängum fra'uti

#2
Neither is correct, actually.  You're trying to do a literal translation of English.

Oe-l ft<er>ia Na'vi-ti Would be what you wanted to say.  Among those three words, order does not matter, it's all saying you are studying Na'vi.  Order doesn't matter because the -l and -ti say which is the subject and which is the object.

To be lu is just another verb.

Na'vi Oe-ri leiu I am Na'vi (And proud of it :))

Or if you're pissed at your new boyfriend, you could shout at them Kawkrr-a Na'vi lu oe-ri You'll never be na'vi.  (Come to think of it, that's probably somewhat close to what she DID shout, now I want to go check that out.)

Edit: Fixed some grammar, I've been doing some things wrong this whole time
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Julian Julian

Ahh, thanks for correcting me.

One more question though, what do 'ti' and 'ri' indicate?

And if hello is 'oel' not 'oe' how is it pronounced?

Thanks for taking the time to answer me :)

omängum fra'uti

-l indicates it is the direct subject of the verb, and -ti the direct object.  -ri would be a noun which is the topic of the sentence without necessarily actively participating in the action being described.  One of the sample lines we have uses Oe-ri for "Me, nose full".  Me isn't what's full, it's the nose that is full.  But because "me" is the topic, that's who's nose it is.  Note that -ri is not a posessive suffix, do don't take that out of that example.

Hello is kaltxì.

First person singular is oe, but when it's the direct subject of a transitive verb (I am doing something) then it becomes oe-l with the -l prefix I mentioned above.  It's pronounced like "Wheel" with out the "wuh" sound for W".  Oo-ee-l.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Julian Julian


'Irr'ni

Quote from: umängam fra'uti on December 22, 2009, 11:46:01 PM
Neither is correct, actually.  You're trying to do a literal translation of English.

Oe-l ft<er>ia Na'vi-ti Would be what you wanted to say.  Among those three words, order does not matter, it's all saying you are studying Na'vi.  Order doesn't matter because the -l and -ti say which is the subject and which is the object.

To be lu is just another verb.

Na'vi-ti Oe-l leiu I am Na'vi (And proud of it :))

Or if you're pissed at your new boyfriend, you could shout at them Kawkrr a Na'vi-ti lu oe-l You'll never be na'vi.  (Come to think of it, that's probably somewhat close to what she DID shout, now I want to go check that out.)

So, if I want to say that I'm studying Na'vi and enjoying it, should I say,
Oe-l ft<er>i<ei>a Na'vi-ti?

Irayo

omängum fra'uti

Srane, tsa-san tì-ngay lu
Yes, that-quote concept-true is
Yes, that is exactly what you say.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

'Irr'ni

#8
Quote from: umängam fra'uti on December 23, 2009, 12:49:16 AM
Srane, tsa-san tì-ngay lu
Yes, that-quote concept-true is
Yes, that is exactly what you say.

Thank you! Wow, my first correct phrase!

Tsmukan Ikranä

can someone explaine the " <er> " its really confusing me, is this just bad encoding on Opera or is it some linguistic thing im missing.

Níxtan irayo! ( am i saying that right atleast? ) and why is my little line off the i backwards, does it matter  ???

This is by far the most informative, tho i havent even learned the words yet LOL i think i need to just tackle the words before i start building sentences or thoughts, its soo much to tackle but this is new to me and overly exciting
Seze
Tsteu Seze! Txur Seze! FKEU SEZE!!
Nawm ronsem lonu ta fkeu tokx, fpi Na'Viä fpom.
Mawey txur txe'lan, tswayon nìwin.
Set unil ftue.
Eywa ngahu tsmuke! ( Irayo! everyone who helped me edit this n.n )

'Irr'ni

#10
Quote from: tsìng tsyal vrrtep on December 23, 2009, 01:17:10 AM
can someone explaine the " <er> " its really confusing me, is this just bad encoding on Opera or is it some linguistic thing im missing.

It's not encoding. The brackets make it easier for us beginners to identify infixes within words.  :)

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: tsìng tsyal vrrtep on December 23, 2009, 01:17:10 AM
can someone explaine the " <er> " its really confusing me, is this just bad encoding on Opera or is it some linguistic thing im missing.

Níxtan irayo! ( am i saying that right atleast? ) and why is my little line off the i backwards, does it matter  ???

This is by far the most informative, tho i havent even learned the words yet LOL i think i need to just tackle the words before i start building sentences or thoughts, its soo much to tackle but this is new to me and overly exciting

For beginners so the parts of a word are easier to pick out, in this forum it's encouraged to show the prefixes and infixes applied.  So "-" is used to separate the prefix from the root word (Or other prefixes) and "<..>" is used to separate the infix from the root word.  That way you don't have to scramble through the vocabulary trying to figure out why you can't find "fteria" in there.  You can just ignore the <er> part when you're looking up the root word.  Outside this forum here you'll usually see it written without the extra marks.  For example if I were to be writing my user name in here I'd write it out as um<äng>am fra'u-ti, but otherwise you'd see it like in my username.

For the thanks, close, but you have what's probably just a typo.  It's nìtxan not nìxtan.  "tx" is a single letter in Na'vi.  X on it's own will never appear anywhere but after a p, t or k.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

wisnij

Quote from: umängam fra'uti on December 22, 2009, 11:46:01 PM
To be lu is just another verb.

Na'vi-ti Oe-l leiu I am Na'vi (And proud of it :))

lu appears to be a copula, though, so it probably doesn't behave like a transitive verb.  I would say maybe: Oe-ri Na'vi lu
Wé cildra biddaþ þé, éalá láréow, þæt þú taéce ús sprecan rihte, forþám ungelaérede wé sindon, and gewæmmodlíce we sprecaþ.

wm.annis

Quote from: wisnij on December 23, 2009, 07:24:23 AM
lu appears to be a copula, though, so it probably doesn't behave like a transitive verb.  I would say maybe: Oe-ri Na'vi lu

Or even simpler: Oe Na'vi lu.  The subject of an intransitive verb needs no marker at all.

Tsmukan Ikranä

ahahaah you are absolutely right there, i did typo that. when i get tired i tend to reverse characters, if you see that in my posts and its late night/early morn you can either ignore it or let me know. ive been trying to break that habit . . . . guess i need to just proof my posts before posting from now on i guess. the the fact the my little i character comes out like this " í " intead of like this " ì " doesnt make any difference then. i had to copy/paste the second one because i cant figure out how to type it, even in the US/international keyboard format.

Nítxan irayo! fixed lol
Seze
Tsteu Seze! Txur Seze! FKEU SEZE!!
Nawm ronsem lonu ta fkeu tokx, fpi Na'Viä fpom.
Mawey txur txe'lan, tswayon nìwin.
Set unil ftue.
Eywa ngahu tsmuke! ( Irayo! everyone who helped me edit this n.n )

wisnij

Quote from: wm.annis on December 23, 2009, 07:46:31 AM
Quote from: wisnij on December 23, 2009, 07:24:23 AM
lu appears to be a copula, though, so it probably doesn't behave like a transitive verb.  I would say maybe: Oe-ri Na'vi lu

Or even simpler: Oe Na'vi lu.  The subject of an intransitive verb needs no marker at all.

Yeah.  Again, it depends on how the topic particle is used in practice.
Wé cildra biddaþ þé, éalá láréow, þæt þú taéce ús sprecan rihte, forþám ungelaérede wé sindon, and gewæmmodlíce we sprecaþ.

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: wm.annis on December 23, 2009, 07:46:31 AM
Quote from: wisnij on December 23, 2009, 07:24:23 AM
lu appears to be a copula, though, so it probably doesn't behave like a transitive verb.  I would say maybe: Oe-ri Na'vi lu

Or even simpler: Oe Na'vi lu.  The subject of an intransitive verb needs no marker at all.

I respectfully disagree.  You have two nouns and a verb.  All the official sources I've seen that use lu in a simple sentence treat it as intransitive, then use a dative to say what is being.  In this case Oe Na'vi-ru lu.  Though as topics can often replace datives, you could also correctly say Oe Na'vi-ri lu (Of Na'vi, I be).  But you can't just throw two bare nouns out with a werb and expect them to make sense.

And wisnij, seeing as it is equivelent to the main copula in English, that's a pretty safe bet.  However that does not mean it behaves the same way grammatically.  Every official use I've seen, lu is treated as a verb.  It's also not the only part of the language that can act as a copula.  The ajective prefix/suffix a-/-a is closer to what you're thinking.  That ties an adjective to a noun it's describing.  In the movie there's even examples of Na'vi speakers appearing to use just a noun and adjective tied together with a- and no verb.  I'm not 100% sure but I believe the adpositions can also act in a similar manner, linking two nouns together.  I'll need to do more research.

The important thing to keep in mind here is the free ordering nature of Na'vi.  Position rarely conveys any information within a statement, and when it does there's usually added to one of the words which is position dependant.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

wm.annis

Quote from: umängam fra'uti on December 23, 2009, 07:48:52 PMI respectfully disagree.  You have two nouns and a verb.  All the official sources I've seen that use lu in a simple sentence treat it as intransitive, then use a dative to say what is being.

Example?  I can find none that match this description.  The only thing that comes close, ngaru lu fpom srak has the noun fpom well-being, in a construction that is ubiquitous in human languages — a dative to indicate possession.  It's not asking if you are well-being, but if you have it.

One of the new sentences added to the Corpus today has lu with no dative: Tawsìp ngeyä lu sngeltseng your space-ship is a garbage dump.

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: wm.annis on December 23, 2009, 07:58:41 PM
Example?  I can find none that match this description.  The only thing that comes close, ngaru lu fpom srak has the noun fpom well-being, in a construction that is ubiquitous in human languages — a dative to indicate possession.  It's not asking if you are well-being, but if you have it.

One of the new sentences added to the Corpus today has lu with no dative: Tawsìp ngeyä lu sngeltseng your space-ship is a garbage dump.

Oe-ri ta pe-yä fahew a-kewong ontu teya l<än>gu.
1-TOP from 3.POSS smell ADJ-alien nose full be-PEJ
My nose is full of his alien smell.

In all that there is a dative (Me) a modifier (from his alien smell) subject (full nose) for lu.

About me, full nose from his alien smell is

There's no other verb there, and all the nouns are marked with either a case (-ri) an adposition (ta, yä) with the one exception being the base noun that the verb (be) applies to.

Yes, that's an example with no dative, but I did not mean it requires a dative.  Oe Tawtute-ta lu (I from-sky-people be) is still fine.  In that case, since I didn't use any infixes, if that's all you are saying you could probably just get away with Oe tawtute-ta.  If I wanted to say "I was afraid" I could say Oe hu txopu l<ìm>u (I with fear just was).  In that case the lu is required to express the tense.

But my point is you can't just have two completely unmarked nouns for any verb, including lu.  And if you have two verbs, you have two clauses in your sentence and need something to join them.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

wm.annis

Quote from: umängam fra'uti on December 23, 2009, 08:37:33 PMBut my point is you can't just have two completely unmarked nouns for any verb, including lu

Why not?  For a copular verb especially, such a pattern is common all over the world.  I've seen nothing in the Corpus nor the interviews with Frommer which hints at such a restriction.