An idiom to hack up!

Started by `Eylan Ayfalulukanä, May 06, 2010, 11:19:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

omängum fra'uti

The form of "noun modal-verb subj-verb" the modal verb is always intransitive.  So even "new" which can be used transitively, is intransitive in that sense.

Oe zene pivlltxe
I must speak

Oe tsun pivlltxe
I can speak

Oe new pivlltxe
Oel new futa pivlltxe

I want to speak

On tsaw, it's actually a contracted form of tsa'u.
http://forum.learnnavi.org/language-updates/history-of-tsaw/
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on May 08, 2010, 10:15:58 PM
The form of "noun modal-verb subj-verb" the modal verb is always intransitive.  So even "new" which can be used transitively, is intransitive in that sense.

Oe zene pivlltxe
I must speak

Oe tsun pivlltxe
I can speak

Oe new pivlltxe
Oel new futa pivlltxe

I want to speak

On tsaw, it's actually a contracted form of tsa'u.
http://forum.learnnavi.org/language-updates/history-of-tsaw/


So I tkae it that the rendering intransitive does not deal with the way the verb is used in the context of the sentence, but in the way it relates to grammatical/syntactic things like modal verbs. (I also seem to remember that the use of <eyk> renders an intransitive verb transitive.)

In your last example, you added futa, and also the noun case inflections. How does the presence of futa change things? It is also my understanding that the use of (futa, furiia, fwa) makes the following very take the subjunctive as well.

I checked out the 'history of tsaw' post. This is very new (and interesting) information. I think we are finally beginning to see things that make Na`vi a real language-- exceptions to rules that can only be learned by memorization, not by rule or pattern  :-\

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

omängum fra'uti

#22
Verbs are primarily transitive/intransitive based on usage/semantics/context.  Or they can be determined by grammar.  The example I gave was intransitive by use, not by meaning.  However consider...

Oe taron taluna lu taronyu.
I hunt because I'm a hunter.

Oel yerikit taron taluna zene yivom.
I hunt a hexapod because I need to eat.

The first is intransitive because I'm not saying what I hunt, just that I hunt.  The second is transitive because I say I'm hunting hexapods.  Also consider...

Oeyä soaia new yerikit yivom, tafral oel taron.
My family wants to eat hexapod, therefore I hunt them.

Notice that despite the fact that I don't give an accusitive, I am still using taron transitively.  The reason is I'm not just saying I hunt, I'm saying specifically that I'm hunting hexapods.  However contextually it is understood that I'm talking about hexapods there.

You are correct with eyk, anything with eyk is going to be transitive.  Similarly, anything with äp is intransitive.  Semantically nothing else makes sense.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on May 08, 2010, 11:04:05 PM
In your last example, you added futa, and also the noun case inflections. How does the presence of futa change things? It is also my understanding that the use of (futa, furiia, fwa) makes the following very take the subjunctive as well.

Futa = fì'ut a.  So the last example becomes two clauses...  "Oel new fì'ut" - I want this.  "(Oe) pivlltxe" - I speak.  Put together, "Oel new fì'ut a pivlltxe" - I want this "I speak" thing.  The other form of that example is using a special form, but it's still something like two clauses...  "Oe new" - I want.  "(Oe) pivlltxe" - I speak.  This works for "new" because it can be used transitively, but "tsun" and "zene" can't.  "I must ikran" or "I am able friend" don't really make sense, but "want" in either of those sentences makes sense.

And no, futa/furia/fwa/etc don't make the following subjunctive as well.  It does in the case of "new", but not necessarily in others.  For example...

Oel fpìl futa zene hivum
I think that I must leave.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on May 08, 2010, 10:08:07 PM
I do not see whay futa is annoying people here. Perhaps I do not understand futa (or furia or fwa) as wwell as I should. The sentence makes sense to me just as it is.
I didn't answer this before...

It's not futa that bothers people.  It's that Na'vi doesn't have indirect quotes, which is what that is trying to be.  So it may not be correct because of that.  Correct would instead be...

Oe zene pivlltxe san ke tsun fko luke tsaw pivlltxe nìtxan.
I must say, "Without it one can not speak much."
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Irayo Omängum! This is beginning to make some sense. Let's see if I am applying this right.

A verb, unless it attested as intransiitive, can be used intransitively or transitively. With certain exceptions (modal verbs, <eyk>, etc.), it is how the verb is used in the sentence that makes it transitive or intransitive. As I understand it, a verb is considered intransitive if it does not need or have an object.

As far as (futa, furia, fwa) goes, I read somewhere after my last post that these are 'relative pronouns', and function to make a clause into a direct object for a transitive verb. So, lets see if I understand this right. Example Oel t<arm>aron nulkrr futa ta<er?>ron ts<?>un livu hasey si[/b] In this example (I think) ta<er?>ron ts<?>un livu hasey si functions like a direct object for the tarmaron in the first clause.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

kewnya txamew'itan

#24
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on May 08, 2010, 12:44:54 PM
Quote from: kemeoauniaea on May 08, 2010, 03:56:14 AM
Yes and no.

If a clause has a noun in the accusative then the subject (if specified) must take the ergative. In all other cases (excluding strictly transitive verbs of which there are few) the subject is unmarked.

Do you really want to say 'strictly intransitive' here?

Quote from: kemeoauniaeaThe reason why toruk should not have taken the ergative in your original sentence was because of where the clause breaks are:

{Keng torukil le`awpo tsun {ska`a oeyä trrìt}}

As you can see, the toruk is not in the same clause as trr or another direct object so the ergative is wrong.

In addition, tsun is strictly intransitive so the ergative is doubly wrong.

I never considered that this sentence was more than one clause. I guess that shows how little I know about waht constitutes a clause. So then, I can assume that tsun can msrk a 'clause break'?

So that said, doesn't there need to be an ergative noun in the second clause then? Or, is this a case where the entire first clause is the 'ergative'?


1. Nope. Frommer said when he explained the rules for transitivity that whilst most words' transitivity is determined by the sentence and whether a direct object is stated (ambitransitivity), he said that there are a few strictly transitive verbs where a direct object is always assumed to exist even if unspecified, I believe the example he gave was the verb tspang. Strictly intransitive verbs cannot have a direct object in any form (although syntactically intransitive verbs like si verbs can).

2. The subject in the second clause is assumed to be the same as in the first unless a new one is specified so the toruk is implied as the subject of the second clause.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on May 08, 2010, 10:08:07 PM
So it is possible to render a transitive verb intransitive by usage? Can you cite a few more examples? Is there a 'test' or 'rule' for doing this?

Sort of. Almost all na'vi verbs are ambitransitive and so only count as transitive if an object is specified (or carried over from a previous clause), there are a few strictly transitive verbs (as I mentioned above, the only one I can remember is tspang) that are always transitive regardless of whether or not an object is stated.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on May 09, 2010, 01:15:07 AM
A verb, unless it attested as intransiitive, can be used intransitively or transitively. With certain exceptions (modal verbs, <eyk>, etc.), it is how the verb is used in the sentence that makes it transitive or intransitive. As I understand it, a verb is considered intransitive if it does not need or have an object.

As far as (futa, furia, fwa) goes, I read somewhere after my last post that these are 'relative pronouns', and function to make a clause into a direct object for a transitive verb. So, lets see if I understand this right. Example Oel t<arm>aron nulkrr futa ta<er?>ron ts<?>un livu hasey si[/b] In this example (I think) ta<er?>ron ts<?>un livu hasey si functions like a direct object for the tarmaron in the first clause.

1. Almost, again there are also one or two strictly transitive verbs.

2. so that is fte, futa is this-[clause]-thing. Also, the form of taron you want in the second clause is tìtaron. You could put an <iv> in tsun but I don't think it would be necessary, also, if you have the livu, drop the si, alternatively you could drop the livu and put <iv> in si.

So it should be:

oe tarmaron nulkrr fte tìtaron tsivun livu hasey

Your original means that you are hunting the ability of hunting to finish.  :P
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

omängum fra'uti

After fte is another case that iv is necessary actually, so in that case it would need to be tsivun.  Perhaps that is what you were thinking of and misremembering when you were recalling futa needing iv.  Otherwise, I agree with kemeoauniaea. :)
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

kewnya txamew'itan

I was wondering about that. Irayo ma omängum.
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

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: kemeoauniaea on May 09, 2010, 01:24:33 AM

If a clause has a noun in the accusative then the subject (if specified) must take the ergative. In all other cases (excluding strictly transitive verbs of which there are few) the subject is unmarked.

The reason why toruk should not have taken the ergative in your original sentence was because of where the clause breaks are:

{Keng torukil le`awpo tsun {ska`a oeyä trrìt}}

As you can see, the toruk is not in the same clause as trr or another direct object so the ergative is wrong.

In addition, tsun is strictly intransitive so the ergative is doubly wrong.

Quote from: `Eylan AyfalulukanäI never considered that this sentence was more than one clause. I guess that shows how little I know about waht constitutes a clause. So then, I can assume that tsun can msrk a 'clause break'?

So that said, doesn't there need to be an ergative noun in the second clause then? Or, is this a case where the entire first clause is the 'ergative'?

1. Nope. Frommer said when he explained the rules for transitivity that whilst most words' transitivity is determined by the sentence and whether a direct object is stated (ambitransitivity), he said that there are a few strictly transitive verbs where a direct object is always assumed to exist even if unspecified, I believe the example he gave was the verb tspang. Strictly intransitive verbs cannot have a direct object in any form (although syntactically intransitive verbs like si verbs can).

So I think what you are saying here is that in most cases, the need for a marked subject is determined by the presence of an object. In this case, the verb involved is considered to be transitive. This also implies that marking the case of the subject when the verb is known to be intransitive is never a good practice.


Quote from: kemeoauniaea2. The subject in the second clause is assumed to be the same as in the first unless a new one is specified so the toruk is implied as the subject of the second clause.

That is new information for me!
Is this a case where toruk should have been topical?

Quote from: kemeoauniaea
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä
So it is possible to render a transitive verb intransitive by usage? Can you cite a few more examples? Is there a 'test' or 'rule' for doing this?

Sort of. Almost all na'vi verbs are ambitransitive and so only count as transitive if an object is specified (or carried over from a previous clause), there are a few strictly transitive verbs (as I mentioned above, the only one I can remember is tspang) that are always transitive regardless of whether or not an object is stated.

So oel tspang is correct, and oe tspang is not, even thought there should be an object like oel tspang sawtuteti

Quote from: kemeoauniaea
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä
A verb, unless it attested as intransiitive, can be used intransitively or transitively. With certain exceptions (modal verbs, <eyk>, etc.), it is how the verb is used in the sentence that makes it transitive or intransitive. As I understand it, a verb is considered intransitive if it does not need or have an object.

As far as (futa, furia, fwa) goes, I read somewhere after my last post that these are 'relative pronouns', and function to make a clause into a direct object for a transitive verb. So, lets see if I understand this right. Example Oel t<arm>aron nulkrr futa ta<er?>ron ts<?>un livu hasey si[/b] In this example (I think) ta<er?>ron ts<?>un livu hasey si functions like a direct object for the tarmaron in the first clause.

1. Almost, again there are also one or two strictly transitive verbs.

2. so that is fte, futa is this-[clause]-thing. Also, the form of taron you want in the second clause is tìtaron. You could put an <iv> in tsun but I don't think it would be necessary, also, if you have the livu, drop the si, alternatively you could drop the livu and put <iv> in si.

So it should be:

oe tarmaron nulkrr fte tìtaron ts(iv)un livu hasey

Your original means that you are hunting the ability of hunting to finish.  :P

So hunting becomes a noun for the second clause? I am having to wrap my head around that :-\

In that case, it is OK that the sentence ends with an adjective (hasey). This is how the sentence ends in your example above. I originally thought that would have to be a verb, so I added the si. So, there is apparently more than one correct way to have this sentence end, with hasey as a adjective or a derived verb.

Quote from: omängum fra`utiAfter fte is another case that iv is necessary actually, so in that case it would need to be tsivun.  Perhaps that is what you were thinking of and misremembering when you were recalling futa needing iv.  Otherwise, I agree with kemeoauniaea.  :)

That sounds very believable. I just wish I could remember everything that gets posted here, the first time I read it.  :P Adding <iv> to tsun seems to me to change 'can' into 'could', which makes more sense to the meaning of the sentence. In any case, I hope at least some of this sinks into my thick tawtute head!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

kewnya txamew'itan

1. correct.

2. it's a case where the topical could be used although I probably wouldn't, if toruk was changing case then I might.

3. correct

4. hunting is a gerund that in English is a noun, this is unfortunate because it is the same word as the participle in English. Yes you can end it with an adjective it is finished = fìkem luyu hasey IIRC or you could use sivi and drop the lu to get "so that hunting can finish".

5. yup, tsivun=could.
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

Kì'eyawn

Quote from: kemeoauniaea on May 09, 2010, 01:24:33 AM
...Frommer said when he explained the rules for transitivity that whilst most words' transitivity is determined by the sentence and whether a direct object is stated (ambitransitivity), he said that there are a few strictly transitive verbs where a direct object is always assumed to exist even if unspecified, I believe the example he gave was the verb tspang. Strictly intransitive verbs cannot have a direct object in any form (although syntactically intransitive verbs like si verbs can).

Ma kemeoauniaea, omum ngal tsenget a tsun oe rivun fì'upxareti ta Karyu Pawl srak?
Kemeoauniaea, do you know where i can find this message from Karyu Pawl?

I am familiar with verbs that are obligated to be transitive (don't know technical term, IANAL), but i was thinking of those that make no sense (in English, at least) without a direct object; but i wasn't aware of this sort of thing, where even without the object explicitly stated in the sentence the verb is still treated as transitive (and, as such, the subject must take the ergative).

Ngeyä tìsrungìri ngaru irayo seiyi oe, ma tsmuk.

eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

kewnya txamew'itan

I can't find it, it's an old email, from before the language updates board IIRC which makes it harder to search for.

Essentially he stated that ambitransitivity is the norm but a few (the only example I remember is tspang) are always transitive.
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

Carborundum

Quote from: kemeoauniaea on May 10, 2010, 02:06:14 AM
I can't find it, it's an old email, from before the language updates board IIRC which makes it harder to search for.

Essentially he stated that ambitransitivity is the norm but a few (the only example I remember is tspang) are always transitive.
Here it is.
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.

wm.annis

Quote from: Carborundum on May 10, 2010, 02:19:36 AM
Quote from: kemeoauniaea on May 10, 2010, 02:06:14 AM
I can't find it, it's an old email, from before the language updates board IIRC which makes it harder to search for.

Essentially he stated that ambitransitivity is the norm but a few (the only example I remember is tspang) are always transitive.
Here it is.

That does not say ambitransitivity is the norm, however.  It merely makes clear that it's one possibility.

kewnya txamew'itan

Hmm, I was misremembering the email then.  ::)

I stand corrected. Irayo ma mesmuk.
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

Kì'eyawn

Okay, so...where does that leave us, then?  When he says tspang is "clearly transitive," does that mean the subject does indeed take the ergative regardless of whether there's an explicitly stated object?
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...

wm.annis

Quote from: tigermind on May 10, 2010, 12:02:44 PM
Okay, so...where does that leave us, then?  When he says tspang is "clearly transitive," does that mean the subject does indeed take the ergative regardless of whether there's an explicitly stated object?

Yep.

Kì'eyawn

Quote from: wm.annis on May 10, 2010, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: tigermind on May 10, 2010, 12:02:44 PM
Okay, so...where does that leave us, then?  When he says tspang is "clearly transitive," does that mean the subject does indeed take the ergative regardless of whether there's an explicitly stated object?

Yep.

Weird.  Okay; i guess i'll have to wait for Karyu Pawl to give us a list of the verbs that, like this, are obligatorily transitive. 

Wouldn't want this language to be too easy to learn, kefyak?
eo Eywa oe 'ia

Fra'uri tìyawnur oe täpivìng nìwotx...