Conversational Verbs

[omängum fra'uti]

Now THAT is an idiom.  It is using the concept of exchanging something physical for goods or services (Buying) as an analogy for exchanging information for redemption.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Now THAT is an idiom.  It is using the concept of exchanging something physical for goods or services (Buying) as an analogy for exchanging information for redemption.

How would you describe this process?

[Luke Sully]

watch   In what sense?  We have tìng nari, nìn, nari si...
Watch seems different to me. You order someone to watch a prisoner, you don't order them to look at a prisoner or to see a prisoner.

That would be "nari si" then.

Nari sivi foru fteke fo ke hivum
Watch them so they don't leave (Since we don't have a word "escape")

I'm just a noob so I'm probably wrong, but there seems to be a double negative in the sentence: "Nari sivi foru fteke fo ke hivum"

"fteke" means "so that not, lest" and there's also "ke" which means "not".

What do you guys think?

[omängum fra'uti]

Na'vi actually loves double negatives within a clause...  But in this case I think you are right that the second clause shouldn't be negative.

(Example of fteke from the corpus: Nari s<ol>i ayoe fteke nìhawng l<iv>ok - We paid attention so that we did not get too close.)

But that does bring up an interesting question...  What would that do in cases where the second clause would normally be double negative?  If fteke can be taken as just "fte ke" then the double negative should still apply, for example...

Ayoeng zene r<iv>ikx uo 'uo fteke po-l kawtu-t ts<iv>e'a
We must move behind something so that he doesn't see anyone
My feeling is that usage would be correct, but I may have to add that to the list of questions for Frommer.

Note that were the second clause to stand on it's own, the double negative would certainly be correct.  For example,
Po-l kawtu-ti ke ts<ol>e'a
He didn't see anyone

Anyway, digression aside, fixing my post.  Thanks!