3rd person ceremonial?

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì, ma smuktu.  I was wondering what to use for the 3rd person pronoun in the "ceremonial" form.

We know that oe becomes ohe and nga becomes ngenga, but what about po?  Does it stay the same?  Have we ever seen the 3rd person pronoun used in ceremonial language?

Incidentally, if there is a ceremonial form, my money is on it being *pepo, but of course that doesn't make me right.

[Kemaweyan]

Nìngay sìltsana säfpìl.. oe kawkrr ke fpamìl fìtxeleri, slä set lam oer fwa ke omum oel tì'eyngit Nìngay eltur tìtxen si oeri...

It's really good idea. I never thought about this, but now seems to me that I don't know the answer It's really interesting...

[Sireayä mokri]

I don't think that there is any ceremonial form for po. That's what Mo'at used during "Eye of Eywa": srung si poeru ma Eywa.

[Kì'eyawn]

I don't think that there is any ceremonial form for po. That's what Mo'at used during "Eye of Eywa": srung si poeru ma Eywa.

But the fact that she said "srung si" and not "srung suyi" means it wasn't in the ceremonial register anyway, kefyak?

[wm.annis]

But the fact that she said "srung si" and not "srung suyi" means it wasn't in the ceremonial register anyway, kefyak?

Not necessarily.  Frommer has said that you can use the ceremonial forms to set up the ceremonial context, but once used you don't need to keep using them constantly.

Frommer has had ample opportunity to let us know if there were ceremonial 3rd person pronouns.  We haven't seen any so far, so I doubt they exist (now or in the future).  The verb infix can pick up the slack.

[Kemaweyan]

I don't think that there is any ceremonial form for po. That's what Mo'at used during "Eye of Eywa": srung si poeru ma Eywa.

Yeah, I agree. I think, if that was so, Pawl would have told us already

[Sireayä mokri]

But the fact that she said "srung si" and not "srung suyi" means it wasn't in the ceremonial register anyway, kefyak?

She didn't use <uy> in the same sentence even with ceremonial pronoun: tìng mikyun ayoheru rutxe, ma nawma sa'nok.

[Kì'eyawn]

But the fact that she said "srung si" and not "srung suyi" means it wasn't in the ceremonial register anyway, kefyak?

She didn't use <uy> in the same sentence even with ceremonial pronoun: tìng mikyun ayoheru rutxe, ma nawma sa'nok.

Huh.  Well that's weird.  Color me confused 

[Sireayä mokri]

Huh.  Well that's weird.  Color me confused 

I actually doubt that it's necessary to use both infix and ceremonial pronoun at the same time. Is there a rule concerning this?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Nìngay sìltsana säfpìl.. oe kawkrr ke fpamìl fìtxeleri, slä set lam oer fwa ke omum oel tì'eyngit Nìngay eltur tìtxen si oeri...

lu fìtsenge fte aysngä'iyur srung sivi, rutxe ralpiveng foru.

Huh.  Well that's weird.  Color me confused 

I actually doubt that it's necessary to use both infix and ceremonial pronoun at the same time. Is there a rule concerning this?

This is my thinking. The way that na'vi implies an awful lot (be it verb arguments, tenses, aspects or affect) makes me think that it doesn't like providing elaborations more than once and isn't a big fan of redundancy. The formal pronoun "ayohe" has already established the ceremonial register so, like you no longer need to use <am> once the past tense is established (which can be done with adverbs like trram not just <am>), <uy> becomes unnecessary.

[Kemaweyan]

Sorry Translated.