"something which does not have..." Syntax?

Started by Kame Ayyo’koti, May 24, 2014, 05:10:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kame Ayyo’koti

Could someone check the syntax of this phrase for me please?

ay-sirea a ke lu tsa'u-r kea 'on
Literally: spirits which not have-they no form
Attempted meaning: spirits which have no form

Does the double negative go here? ("..ke lu ... kea 'u-o...") I'm still not sure when that is supposed to be used.

Also, I included "them" in the subclause because of the way Na'vi says "to have."

Lu fì'u eyawr srak?
"Your work is to discover your world, and then with all your heart give yourself to it."

Eana Unil

#1
I'd say that double negative works and is needed here, though I'm not sure about the "tsa'u(r)"-part yet, since tirea is not a "thing" ('u) for me :-\ Then again, nothing else than tsa'ur/tsar seems to be working here, not even topical... So to me this relative clause construction here seems to be correct.

Ezy Ryder


Eana Unil

#3
I thought of that as well, but pum only works for pronoun-related replacement, like in
Kelku ngeyä lu tsawl; pum oeyä lu hì'i. -> http://naviteri.org/2010/06/first-post/
So I doubt that it would work here (replacing tirea with pum doesn't seem correct to me, replacing 'on with pum, which would seem gramatically correct to me, would make no sense), though I'm not sure.
(Ay)Sirea-r ke lu kea 'on - hufwa (ay)sute-r pum lu. Spirits don't have a form, although people (do) have "one".
Ay-sirea-r ke lu kea 'on - hufwa ay-fum-ur lu 'on --- ??  ???
Ha...
Ay-sirea a ke lu ay-fum-ur kea 'on - would make no sense, at least to me.

Btw, I just noticed that you have to put tsa'u-r into plural, since it's ay-sirea, so ay-sa'u-r/sar would be correct, no?

Ay-sirea-r a ke lu kea 'on? Looks wrong to me as well...

Plumps

It should be (ay)sa'ur, true.

pum on the other hand is not marked for number. But it can be put into cases. So, either

          ay-sirea a ke lu (ay)sa'u-r kea 'on

as well as

          ay-sirea a ke lu pum-ur kea 'on

are correct. Of course, it's a matter of belief and opinion but I would go for aysa'u as well. I've never seen pum used in a subordinate clause.

Concerning the double negative, ma K.A. ;)
Whenever you have a negated noun, pronoun or adverb (e.g. kea, kawtseng, kawtu, kawkrr, ke'u...) you need to negate the verb as well.

Aysirea a ke lu sa'ur 'on is also possible but would mean 'spirits that don't hava a form' as opposed to your sentence which means 'spirits that have no form'. Hope that clears things up :D

Kame Ayyo’koti

Thanks guys for your input. Some of these structures are really tricky. And irayo ma Plumps; as insightful as always. ;)
"Your work is to discover your world, and then with all your heart give yourself to it."

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

As spirits are generally animate, I would thing tsafor could also be used in place of tsa'ur.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Plumps

#7
Quote from: Kame Ayyo'koti on May 24, 2014, 08:56:41 AMAnd irayo ma Plumps; as insightful as always. ;)
Ke pxan, ma K.A. :-[
Nìprrte'.


Hm, come to think of it...
Do we speak of the spirit of a person or spirits in the sense of bean-sí, ghosts etc.?

I think how it is used in the film it's the spiritual ran of a tute, isn't it? I'm not sure how other cultures treat this but since it tul to be with Eywa, I'd say it's animate. Again, one of those little things that are still unclear, same as with plants...

Tirea Aean

#8
Yeah, it's not animate, but idk about *tsafor. It would have to be tsayfor (probably a typo there)

I'd agree with plumps on all counts.

I do say, though, that pum is well explained by Eana Unil (and the part where it cannot be pluralized by Plumps).

To answer OP, I'd say "spirits which have no form" would be something like

Aysirea a ke lu foru (kea) 'on.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

I debated on tsaforu vs tsayforu. I used tsaforu even though plural was meant because you don't see tsay- used a whole lot. So, this is probably an error on my part.

This really belongs in its own thread!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tirea Aean

#10
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on May 24, 2014, 05:36:50 PM
I debated on tsaforu vs tsayforu. I used tsaforu even though plural was meant because you don't see tsay- used a whole lot. So, this is probably an error on my part.

This really belongs in its own thread!

tsay+ is a thing; It's just the tsa- counterpart of fay+

Horen 3.3.2, It's mentioned in Horen 7 times throughout example sentences and such. So it's pretty much settled here without need for further discussion. :)

Blue Elf

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on May 24, 2014, 05:36:50 PM
I debated on tsaforu vs tsayforu. I used tsaforu even though plural was meant because you don't see tsay- used a whole lot. So, this is probably an error on my part.

This really belongs in its own thread!
Related to tsafo / tsayfo:
we have tsapo - that one (as a person). It is created as tsa- + po. What is plural?
Tsa- is used with singulars: tsakem, tsatu, tsaketuwong. If you need plural, we use tsay+ + singular form of the noun:
tsayhem, tsayhetuwong. We can't use tsa- with plural: *tsafo.
However tsa- is used with dual or trial too: tsamehetuwong (those two aliens), tsapxeveng (those three childen). Based on this logic you can use tsa- with plural, what is:
tsa- + ay+ + signgular form = tsay+ + singular form. But plural must be in its long form:
tsa+ +ayfo = tsayfo, not tsa+ fo = *tsafo
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)