being yourself

[Vawmataw]

Hello! I would like to translate this part of a proverb (being yourself). I really don't know how to translate it. Thanks for your help!

[Tirea Aean]

You know.. I don't think we have any thing like this. All we have is an idiom for: don't expect X to behave in a way inconsistent with X's intrinsic/fundamental nature.

Maybe since the Na'vi, before humans arrived, had no concept of deception, they always were themselves and honest with themselves and others so maybe this "be yourself (as opposed to act like youre someone else to put on an act of deception to appear like someone you're not)" is a foreign concept too.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

How about something as simple as leru sneyä or Ngal leyku sneyä. Would sno work here?

[Tirea Aean]

No, because sno is for the third person singular, to break up the ambiguity when it comes to intransitive verbs which are ineligible for the äp infix. And sneyä when the possession is ambiguous and you want to say he..his own or she..her own.

He ate his dinner. (job for sneyä vs peyä to make the distinction)

He saw him (someone else) = Pol tsole'a pot.
He saw himself = Po tsäpole'a

He helped him (someone else) = Po srung soli poru
He helped himself = Po srung soli snoru.

There is no ambiguity of whether I'm talking about the same person if we're in the first or second person:

I saw me == I saw myself; I helped me == I helped myself; I ate my dinner == I ate my own dinner.
You saw you == You saw yourself; You helped you == You helped yourself; You ate your dinner == You ate your own dinner.
So there's no case to be made for using sno with the 1st and 2nd person pronouns.

As for using eyk? That's for causing or making something happen.

Lu nga... nga?

The speaker is telling the listener to be the very same person who they already are.

Lu nga.

But this already means "You are." So I think we have a big problem here. This idea of "Be yourself" as an imperative telling the listener to exist as their currently existing self seems literally redundant. But the purpose is to actually tell the listener to not be deceptive and to show their true nature. So perhaps we can translate this idiom by its meaning:

Wìntxu ngeyä ranit angay.
Show your true intrinsic character / personality.

EDIT: beware the edits

[Tìtstewan]

There is no solution untill we have someting about a -self / own word by Frommer, which has been submitted to him by the LEP some months ago.

He saw him (someone else) = Pol tsole'a pot. He saw himself = Po tsäpole'a He helped him (someone else) = Po srung soli poru He helped himself = Po srung soli snoru.

You could use also,
Po srung säpoli (I know this is not productive but...)
Po srung säpeykoli

I never saw "Nga läpeyku"

[Tirea Aean]

we already have stuff for that. But it's just not productive.

And you can't say *srung säpoli. Nor *srung säpeykoli.

And neither *läpu nor *läpeyku work because they violate the requirement of äp. You need a verb that takes a direct object (transitive verb), in order for the subject of the sentence to be the direct object reflexively... Lu is an svin. by definition, an intransitive copular stative verb. I don't see how it could become reflexive even with äp. This would be why you never saw *läpeyku

EDIT: I see what you did there. You tried to make it transitive by adding <eyk> and then use äp on the result. Interesting, but the problem here is, the result which is Nga läpeyku, does not mean what you want it to. It is a statement saying "You cause yourself to be." Which is a fascinating statement to make, indeed.

[Tìtstewan]

Well, some problems need some creative ideas. And I wrote, I never saw "läpeyku" which means, it's not really possible
Anyway, for "Being yourself" we need a reflexive of "you" (nga) like po - sno

[Tirea Aean]

but why is that, if we can just use nga again? It could literally only mean one thing.

Nga srung soli ngaru.

There is no confusion as to who you helped. I see nothing wrong with this.

Nga lu nga.
You are you.

But there is no really good way to say "Be you." as an imperative command without it getting confused with a factual statement: "You are." or "You are you." Lu is probably the /only/ verb this applies to.

[Tìtstewan]

but why is that, if we can just use nga again? It could literally only mean one thing. Nga srung soli ngaru.

This would be the same logic like:
Oel tse'a oet
It's grammatical but nobody would say that. There was some discussions on that, I don't know where it was.... :S

[Kiyevame Ikran]

How about sleru ngeyä ran (Becoming your personality)? I just find the synonyms and round up the words. I don't really know if this totally change the meaning.

[Tirea Aean]

I already know that nobody would ever say

Oel tse'a oet.

Therefore, i used an intransitive example, where äp cannot be used.

Sleru ngeyä ran

Would then mean "Your personality is becoming." Which leads the listener to ask "it is becoming what?"

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Tirea Aean wrote:

Wìntxu ngeyä ranit angay

Wordy, but far and away the best example of how to express this idea.

[Tìtstewan]

What about this?
Ngar lu snolup
Have an (own) personal style

[Tirea Aean]

How do you distinguish that from a factual statement? I see that, and the first thing I think is, "You have a personal style." So here's another interesting question: How can you command someone to have something (or be something) without having just made the factual statement?


EDIT: A side-effect of the fact there is no vtr. Have in Na'vi, in favor of "is to ____" ( lu __ru) is that you actually make the possessed thing the subject of the sentence. So therefore theoretically, in order to command someone to have something in Na'vi, you would actually literally have to command the thing to be to that person. Hey you! Arrow! Be to Neytiri!

[Tìtstewan]

To be honest, I don't know how to "comment" someone tho 'have' something.

But I think, this would fix that 'have' problem:
Wìntxu ngeyä snolupit
Show your personal style.

[Tirea Aean]

To be honest, I don't know how to "comment" someone tho 'have' something.

But I think, this would fix that 'have' problem:
Wìntxu ngeyä snolupit
Show your personal style.

See my edit

Hmm this version is shorter and seems to work well.

[Tìtstewan]

See my edit

Huch, I didn't notice your edit.
*read it* - HRH!

Hmm this version is shorter and seems to work well.

[Vawmataw]

Thanks for your answers guys.
Since we have no real answer for now, I will give up my proverb.

[Tirea Aean]

Thanks for your answers guys.
Since we have no real answer for now, I will give up my proverb.

I would have said the best answer is this one:

[...]
Wìntxu ngeyä snolupit
Show your personal style.

How does one say "Be yourself!" en Français? Auf Deutsch?

[Vawmataw]

I would have said the best answer is this one:

[...]
Wìntxu ngeyä snolupit
Show your personal style.

ok. It makes sense.

Be yourself can be translated as Sois toi-même.