A few questions about the language..

Started by Kxani, February 02, 2010, 09:17:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kxani

Let's take the work you, for an example....
As in...

I See You
Oel Ngati Kameie

But why is oe (me) oel, if all should be as I learned the words it should be..
Oe Nga Kameie .. I got why it is ie inte the end of kame.. since its something I AM doung right now.. but why gnaTI and oeL?

wm.annis

What languages have you studied?

Na'vi uses "cases" to indicate the function of a word in a sentence.  In the case of Na'vi, that means things are tacked onto the end of words.  English does surprisingly little of this, but "you run" vs. "he runs" is a similar sort of thing.  Just like "I" and "me" have different uses, oe and oel have different uses.

Na'vi also has infixes — grammar changes that happen inside a word.  In this situation, the infix ‹ei› (we use the angle-brackets to indicate infixes, and a dash for prefixes and suffixes, as in ay- and -l) indicates the speaker's pleasure.

justNaviBrother

Oel ngati kameie
it is an ergative, which needs suffix -l(marker of ergative), and -ti(accusetive). So finally we got

oe-l nga-ti kam<ei>e
I-ERG YOU-ACC SEE-suffix of pleasure

hope, this may help;) 
Pefya oel tsun tivìng atanit, txo ayfeyä aynari tsere'a mì txon???
Ma aysmukan si aysmuke, ayoeng zene 'awsiteng livu, talun kawnga krr set.
Ye'rìn oe spaw atan zilva'u ulte frapol Eywati kilvameie

Yanatan

#3
Quote from: Kxani TsaheyluI got why it is ie inte the end of kame.. since its something I AM doung right now

I know it's confusing, but the laudatory infix <ei> is not a suffix (not -ie). Kameie breaks down as kam<ei>e. 'kame' is the verb for 'see', and the <ei> gives it a positive feeling.

Also, <ei> has nothing to do with tense. The present tense is the default, you don't have to do anything to say 'present'.

The inflections guide is an excellent resource when it comes to affixes, I continually refer to it to make sure I have my facts (and infixes) straight. ;D It's in the infixes/prefixes/suffixes forum in the sticky.

Kxani

Quote from: justNaviBrother on February 02, 2010, 10:24:17 AM
Oel ngati kameie
it is an ergative, which needs suffix -l(marker of ergative), and -ti(accusetive). So finally we got

oe-l nga-ti kam<ei>e
I-ERG YOU-ACC SEE-suffix of pleasure

hope, this may help;) 

ergative?? What is that in my language (swedish?) I don't get the meening of ergative and accusetive? How do you explain those words?

thanks for the help! :)

Yanatan

From what I'm told, the ergative is the subject and the accusative is the direct object.

"I see you" - 'I' is the subject, 'you' is the direct object.
"You see me" - 'You' is the subject, 'me' is the direct object.

(I'm not quite positive about my cases, so if I'm wrong, please do correct me)

SanguineEpitaph

In addition, the ergative marker you see above (-l) and the accusative (-ti) have allomorphs, think of it like they just morph/change into something. Just letting you know so that if you see them, you don't get even more confused. ;)

Ergative

-l is used if the word ends in a vowel.
-ìl is used if the word ends in a consonant.

Accusative

-t
is used if the word ends in a vowel.
-ti is also used if the word ends in a vowel (you can just choose -t or -ti)
-it is used if the word ends in a consonant.

If you noticed, the suffixes change so that no vowels are next to each other! I remember it that way.

Examples:

Oe-l nga-ti kameie.
I-ERG you-ACC see.

Ikranìl oet yom.
Ikran-ERG me-ACC eats.

Notice how they swap?

Hope this helps, ma tsmuk.   
Kuarŏ na nama tanayi cawŏŏt, kuo nim zaosmaŏt.
"Out of what crypt they crawl, I cannot tell."

Carborundum

Quote from: Kxani Tsaheylu on February 02, 2010, 02:58:15 PM
ergative?? What is that in my language (swedish?) I don't get the meening of ergative and accusetive? How do you explain those words?

thanks for the help! :)
Swedish words don't inflect for the ergative case. They do for accusative however. Example:
1:st person = jag
2:nd person = du
Random transitive verb = slå
If we try to combine these into a sentence, we don't get
'jag slå du'
instead we get
'jag slår dig'
First person remains the same, because we ignore the ergative. The verb inflects for present tense (Na'vi does not do that), and finally the second person inflects due to the accusative case. In Swedish terms the second person would be called the 'ackusativ objekt'. Only first and second person inflect for accusative in Swedish, though. In Na'vi, everything does.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Kxani

Huge thanks...det var det jag behövde (just what I needed) :D

Na'rìghawnu

#9
Quote-ti is also used if the word ends in a vowel (you can just choose -t or -ti)

Well, it's until now not clear, whether "t" and "ti" are exchangeable without any problems.
In the corpus we have many nouns using "ti", but not as many using "t" (like kato or 'upxare). Until now not a single noun is known, showing up both endings; so at the moment it's absolutely possible, that certain nouns always take "t", while other ones always take "ti", and that these endings can not be choosed completely at one's will.
This may be proofed wrong in time to come, but at the moment, we have no evidence, that these both endings can be used as complete synonyms.


Kxani

I lerned this now, A HUGA thanks to you all sweetie! :D

Hawnuyu atxen

There were some inflection like that (i mean -ru/-r) and as i know it was said, that we can use the one we like...
Freedom of speech :D
"Hrrap rä'ä si olo'ur smuktuä." ; "Ke'u ke lu ngay. Frakemit tung." (Assassin's Creed)

Nikre tsa'usìn!

Kxani

Yeah by the way.. what is -r and -ru ? :O
nga-ru (to you..?) or?

Hawnuyu atxen

They are the dative suffix, if the word ends with a vowel.
For example:
Oel kxenerit ngaru tìng. I fruit to you give. (i give you fruit)

So yeah, you were right :D
"Hrrap rä'ä si olo'ur smuktuä." ; "Ke'u ke lu ngay. Frakemit tung." (Assassin's Creed)

Nikre tsa'usìn!

Na'rìghawnu

-r and -ru are the endings of the dative case.

They are both interchangeable. Frommer himself writes e. g. sometimes "ayngaru", and sometimes "ayngar". In one of his emails he wrote "ayoer(u)" with the "u" in brackets, so that we have attested, that this "u" is not necessary. But we don't have similar evidence about "t" and "ti". All we know until now is, that Frommer uses "t" consistently with certain nouns and "ti" with other nouns. He never mixed it. So at least it's not clear to us, whether "t" and "ti" are interchangeable like "r" and "ru" are.

Quotei know it was said, that we can use the one we like...
Who said this? Where?

Kxani


Hawnuyu atxen

Well, since -t and -ti are the same (at least we don't know what's/ if there's a difference)...
Frommer said that (i think i mainly meant the -ru/-r pair, but... the line above :D)

Yes, -r and -ru are all the same.
"Hrrap rä'ä si olo'ur smuktuä." ; "Ke'u ke lu ngay. Frakemit tung." (Assassin's Creed)

Nikre tsa'usìn!

Na'rìghawnu


You may use -r and -ru, if the noun ends on a vowel.
If it ends on a consonant, the dativ-ending is -ur, e. g. 'eylanur.

Erimeyz

Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 04, 2010, 01:40:48 PM
But we don't have similar evidence about "t" and "ti". All we know until now is, that Frommer uses "t" consistently with certain nouns and "ti" with other nouns. He never mixed it. So at least it's not clear to us, whether "t" and "ti" are interchangeable like "r" and "ru" are.

Roger seems convinced that "ti" is the "long form" and denotes formal speech.  I'm not sure what his evidence is.

  - Eri

Na'rìghawnu

#19
Well, possible, but not so clear, since Frommer in his reply to our petition uses "t" (with certain words) as well as "ti" (with other ones). Since in all cases he is addressing us (it means: the same people throughout the message), it's hard to believe, that he sometimes speaks formal, and sometimes informal to the same people. See below examples from this message:

usage of "ti"
Oel ayngati kameie.
Spivaw oeti rutxe.

usage of "t"
Fpole' ayngal oer fìtxan nìftxavang a 'upxaret stolawm oel.
[Frommer uses 'upxare again in his message; and again it is 'upxaret (not 'upxareti).