Re: Am I saying this right?

Started by kewnya txamew'itan, July 05, 2010, 04:30:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kewnya txamew'itan

The first one's correct, just a few typos; tak is the most obvious as it isn't a word in na'vi; fìtsenge was spelt wrongly, the ì goes after the f instead of an i, and where you have the ì should be an e, the final e is optional as well; pivangkxo has an "ng" before the kx. Other than that, I don't think the sì is necessary but I don't think it's wrong either.

In the second, the lu would normally come first in sentences like this, also, ne is "to" as in "towards", not "too" as in "too much" so shouldn't be used here, instead I'd just use txan with an attributive -a (which means it describes the noun after it, fpom) so I'd say "ke lu oeru txana fpom". Actually, I just realised that you meant "nìtxan" not "ne txan", in that case, I'd still probably go with my sentence because I'm not sure how a negative verb would work with it, it might end up meaning that you are very much not well.

In the third it should be "oeyä kxetse", "oeru" is the dative, it's only used in possession in constructions that mirror the verb to have "lu oeru tsko", otherwise the genitive -yä is used instead. Again, netxan is a typo, it should be nìtxan.

In you final sentence you've just made the mistake with nìtxan again but from the English translation you've given I don't think it's necessary.

Internet Acronyms Nìna'vi

hamletä tìralpuseng lena'vi sngolä'eiyi. tìkangkem si awngahu ro
http://bit.ly/53GnAB
The translation of Hamlet into Na'vi has started! Join with us at http://bit.ly/53GnAB

txo nga new oehu pivlltxe nìna'vi, nga oer 'eylan si mì fayspuk (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)
If you want to speak na'vi to me, friend me on facebook (http://bit.ly/bp9fwf)

numena'viyä hapxì amezamkivohinve
learnnavi's

Taronyu

I'd like to talk about that first sentence a bit more. You gave it like this:

tsun oe tak fitsìnge sì ngahu pivakxo a fì`u oeru prrte`lu.

And then kemoauniaea correct it to this:

Tsun oe tak fìtseng(e) sì ngahu pivangkxo a fì`u oeru prrte`lu.

Now, tak is mostly likely a misspelling of tok, given your translation. Tok means be, but note that it is transitive. This means that the subject and object need to have their cases changed by adding an -l and a -t. Because it is transitive, the subject, oe, must be marked with an -l: unless you mean for it to be the subject of tsun. Both oe tsun tivok fìtsenget and tsun oel tivok fìtsenget work - not that I changed the position of the oe, as that is less confusing. Also, there aren't yet any examples of a connecting two verb clauses - here, "able to be in this place" and "talk to you" use different verbs, so they must be separated by ulte. So:

Tsun oel tivok fìtsenget ulte ngahu pivangkxo a fì`u oeru prrte`lu.

Finally, there's the issue of subordination. Tsun is a modal verb, which means that any verb that follows after it must have the «iv» infix. Your translation is a bit off. You said (it is a pleasure to be here and to be able to talck to you). But that would be:

Tsun ngahu pivangkxo ulte oel tok fìtsenget a fì`u oeru prrte`lu.

This is fine! Pängkxo is clearly being modified by tsun, and so takes the infix. Tok isn't, and so doesn't - although it would be fine to put the «iv» infix in it, if you wanted to say "it is a pleasure to be able to talk to you and to be able to be here". The tsun doesn't need to be repeated - but in English it is ambiguous whether the able also extends to the being, whereas in Na'vi this would be made clear by the infix in tok - tivok (as I did above, before I switched around the clauses.) So, that's another option.

And there you are. A perfect sentence.

Taronyu

Daniel, if you see this, I split the topic. Go here.