First translation feedback required

[Luciancanad]

So my use of van as "you are welcome to keep staying" is incorrect?

van is not a word (yet).

var is a verb to continue. e.g.

var nivume!
continue to learn! / Keep learning!

well I suppose if you really want to say it as "keep staying"... but I thought that "you are welcome to stay" even while the person is already staying would be basically the same thing. if you use var, you would just have to put <iv> in the 'ì'awn anyway. so var 'ivì'awn is continue to stay / keep staying. Nothing wrong with that really. I suppose it's preference.

Can't say it's a "preference". It was just the first way that sounded coherent to me. And wow... it really is var, not van... *pulls out my eyes and dips them in cleaning solution* 

And, really... is there any place you DON'T have to put this <iv> infix?  Gotta be the single rule that was most repeated on this post

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

You need that <iv> infix whenever that verb is verbed by some other verb. I know that is confusing, so here are examples:

Oel yom teyluti. I eat teylu. No infix in there, since the verb "yom" is independent of another verb.
Oe new yivom teyluti. I want to eat teylu. <iv> infix there, since the verb "yom" is verbed by the verb "new." Note also that in these "double-verb" situations, the subject doesn't take -l.

[Tirea Aean]

modal syntax. check NiaN for more info on requiring iv in modal structures. modal verbs are marked as vm., vtrm., or vim. in the Na'vi-English dictionary.

[Carborundum]

modal syntax. check NiaN for more info on requiring iv in modal structures. modal verbs are marked as vm., vtrm., or vim. in the Na'vi-English dictionary.

This. Not all verbs that are modal in English are modal in Na'vi, and vice versa.

[Luciancanad]

I see. Pretty important then. I still have a couple more phrases translated, but I think i'm having a second look through now that I'm a bit smarter 

[Blue Elf]

modal syntax. check NiaN for more info on requiring iv in modal structures. modal verbs are marked as vm., vtrm., or vim. in the Na'vi-English dictionary.

there is also good post about modals on Naviteri, check it too

[Luciancanad]

Goddamit! Oh! I mean... ahn... Eywa-dammit...

I am suffering to make anything out of NiaN. Only things I was able to understand was what was explained to me here  x_x

Anyway, I made a few changes on the phrases, using whatever I could decypher. You will be the judges 

1: "Sran?" (I'm posting this one just to know which is the right "yes" to use, this or Srane. The character was called and answered "Yes?")

2: "Pe lu tsa'u?" (Questions, questions, woe to me. I haven't got a clue if this is right, couldn't make the question "What is/was that?" work)

3: "Ngey nemfanari" (Another one I don't know the correct format. It's supposed to be "In your eye", as in, "Inside your eye". I looked up this nemfa-, which I assumed to be a preffix, so I stuck it there)

4: "Oeyä nari?" (If this is wrong, I'm giving up on Na'vi...)

5: "Nga teykem swizawit krr a..." (First real alteration, added the <eyk> and the -it, as per what I saw on NiaN)

6: "Ngal plltxe fi'ut?" (Regular issues here. Presence or no of the agentive suffix, and whether the -t is right)

7: "Oel ngati peyang. Oe tsun livawk 'u na'ìnglìsì?" (Agentive suffixes again, plus my first attempt at placing the <iv>. Then there's the 'u, supposed to be "it", not sure if it's right, and the na- to mean "say in English"

Oe srefey ngeyä aysì'eyng 

[Tirea Aean]

I am suffering to make anything out of NiaN. Only things I was able to understand was what was explained to me here  x_x

Anyway, I made a few changes on the phrases, using whatever I could decypher. You will be the judges 

1: "Sran?" (I'm posting this one just to know which is the right "yes" to use, this or Srane. The character was called and answered "Yes?")

2: "Peu lu tsa'u?" (Questions, questions, woe to me. I haven't got a clue if this is right, couldn't make the question "What is/was that?" work)

3: "Ngey narimì / mì ngeyä nari" (Another one I don't know the correct format. It's supposed to be "In your eye", as in, "Inside your eye". I looked up this nemfa-, which I assumed to be a preffix, so I stuck it there)

4: "Oeyä nari srak?" (If this is wrong, I'm giving up on Na'vi...)

5: "Ngal teykem swizawit krr a..." (First real alteration, added the <eyk> and the -it, as per what I saw on NiaN)

6: "Ngal plltxe fi'ut srak?" (Regular issues here. Presence or no of the agentive suffix, and whether the -t is right)

7: "Oel ngati payeng. Oe tsun livawk tsat nì'Ìnglìsì srak?" (Agentive suffixes again, plus my first attempt at placing the <iv>. Then there's the 'u, supposed to be "it", not sure if it's right, and the na- to mean "say in English"

Oel srefey ngeyä aysì'eyngit 

Please include your English translations on ALL sentences , with your little notes and explanations, so I can more easily tell what you are trying to say.

also, Do NOT give up as a result of #4 being not totally correct.

use srak when asking a yes/no question:

• Srake .... ?
  OR
  
• ........ srak?

[Luciancanad]

I shall. And please include explanations on your corrections. I wish to learn.  

And no, I don't intend on giving up. One because it wasn't such a big mistake after all. Two because I'm a stubborn person 

The first three originals are mentioned, fourth I believe to be unnecessary

5: "When you shot the arrow"

6: "You speak of this?"

7: "I will tell you. Can I say it in English?"

Correction questions:

1: Srak is what you use to ask a question without using Pe derivates?

2: How would I use the nemfa- then?

3: I have to place -it whenever the word's an object?

Sorry about the payeng. Something must have short-circuited in here  

[Tirea Aean]

Will do.

I interpreted correctly.

5. in this case, you should have said "Ngal teykem swizawit a krr..." the way you had it, it said "You shoot the arrow when..."

--

1: Srak is what you use to ask a question without using Pe derivates?

srak is for when you ask a yes/no question. it is impossible for a pe+ derivative to be a yes/no question. Use pe+ questions to ask "who, what, which, where, why, when, how" questions. use srak to ask questions for which "srane" or "kehe" is the expected answer.

2: How would I use the nemfa- then?

oh. actually, you could have used nemfa, if you specifically wanted to say inside something, not just in. So really you were right to say either "nemfa ngeyä nari / ngeyä narinemfa" (inside your eye)

3: I have to place -it whenever the word's an object?

yes, that's the whole point of using -it. when the word is a direct object of a transitive verb. but beware, transitivity is not the same across all languages. transitive verbs are marked as vtr. or vtrm. in the Na'vi-English dictionary. also beware mixing up -ru and -ti on some verbs, most notably kar (to teach.)

teach me: kar oeru, not kar oeti.

and then "___ si" verbs, whose english translations are transitive:

help me: srung si oeru, not srung si oeti. (si verbs can never be used with -l and -t)

[Luciancanad]

5. in this case, you should have said "Ngal teykem swizawit a krr..." the way you had it, it said "You shoot the arrow when..."

Noted.

--

1: Srak is what you use to ask a question without using Pe derivates?

srak is for when you ask a yes/no question. it is impossible for a pe+ derivative to be a yes/no question. Use pe+ questions to ask "who, what, which, where, why, when, how" questions. use srak to ask questions for which "srane" or "kehe" is the expected answer.

I had just posted it when I saw your edit answering it 

2: How would I use the nemfa- then?

oh. actually, you could have used nemfa, if you specifically wanted to say inside something, not just in. So really you were right to say either "nemfa ngeyä nari / ngeyä narinemfa" (inside your eye)

Yes, that'd be the idea. What she is referring to is actually inside his eyes. I take that the nemfa is more appropriate here then?

beware mixing up -ru and -ti on some verbs, most notably kar (to teach.)

That's why you guys are here 

Also, I'd appreciate some insight on the -l and -ti. Sometimes I place them, you take it out, others I don't place it and you put it in. What is the rule? Also, the -ru, I haven't quite got its function yet.

[Carborundum]

"Ngal teykem swizawit a krr..."

It is a good attempt, but I don't think this is correct. When using the causative in an intransitive verb such as tem, the patientive argument is becomes the causee. This sentence thus translates as 'when you make the arrow shoot'.

oh. actually, you could have used nemfa, if you specifically wanted to say inside something, not just in. So really you were right to say either "nemfa ngeyä nari / ngeyä narinemfa" (inside your eye)

Well, nemfa is from ne mìfa 'to inside', so it's an adposition of direction, not position. Nemfa ngeyä nari would be more accurately translated as 'into your eye'.

[Luciancanad]

It is a good attempt, but I don't think this is correct. When using the causative in an intransitive verb such as tem, the patientive argument is becomes the causee. This sentence thus translates as 'when you make the arrow shoot'.

So what would be correct? Remove the -it?

Well, nemfa is from ne mìfa 'to inside', so it's an adposition of direction, not position. Nemfa ngeyä nari would be more accurately translated as 'into your eye'.

So the narimì form is the correct, after all?

[Carborundum]

It is a good attempt, but I don't think this is correct. When using the causative in an intransitive verb such as tem, the patientive argument is becomes the causee. This sentence thus translates as 'when you make the arrow shoot'.

So what would be correct? Remove the -it?

You'd need to use the transitive verb toltem shoot. Problem is, it's not clear what the patientive of this verb is. Do I shoot the bow, the arrow or the target? We don't know at this point.

Well, nemfa is from ne mìfa 'to inside', so it's an adposition of direction, not position. Nemfa ngeyä nari would be more accurately translated as 'into your eye'.

So the narimì form is the correct, after all?

I'd say so, yes.

[Luciancanad]

You'd need to use the transitive verb toltem shoot. Problem is, it's not clear what the patientive of this verb is. Do I shoot the bow, the arrow or the target? We don't know at this point.

Uhm... then how do I say it? "teykem swizaw" is incorrect?

[Carborundum]

You'd need to use the transitive verb toltem shoot. Problem is, it's not clear what the patientive of this verb is. Do I shoot the bow, the arrow or the target? We don't know at this point.

Uhm... then how do I say it? "teykem swizaw" is incorrect?

Yes, it's incorrect. When you use a transitive verb, something must take the patiantive case. er... most of the time

I honestly don't think we can say 'shoot the arrow' yet. That would require the verb fire, which we probably don't have yet (unless toltem actually means that). If I were you, I'd reword it to ngal teykem tskot a krr 'when you shoot the bow'. It's essentially the same meaning in English, and it's definitely correct. probably

[Luciancanad]

Very well then. I will hold your word as true until someone corrects it 

[Tirea Aean]

ah good points, Carborundum, karma to you for correcting me.

anyways, ma Luciancanad, Carborundum is right about all this. (he is almost ALWAYS right )

[Tirea Aean]

Spoiler

5. in this case, you should have said "Ngal teykem swizawit a krr..." the way you had it, it said "You shoot the arrow when..."

Noted.

--

1: Srak is what you use to ask a question without using Pe derivates?

srak is for when you ask a yes/no question. it is impossible for a pe+ derivative to be a yes/no question. Use pe+ questions to ask "who, what, which, where, why, when, how" questions. use srak to ask questions for which "srane" or "kehe" is the expected answer.

I had just posted it when I saw your edit answering it 

2: How would I use the nemfa- then?

oh. actually, you could have used nemfa, if you specifically wanted to say inside something, not just in. So really you were right to say either "nemfa ngeyä nari / ngeyä narinemfa" (inside your eye)

Yes, that'd be the idea. What she is referring to is actually inside his eyes. I take that the nemfa is more appropriate here then?

beware mixing up -ru and -ti on some verbs, most notably kar (to teach.)

That's why you guys are here 

Also, I'd appreciate some insight on the -l and -ti. Sometimes I place them, you take it out, others I don't place it and you put it in. What is the rule? Also, the -ru, I haven't quite got its function yet.

well, the rule is this:

if you are using a transitive verb:

• the subject of the transitive verb receives the -l or -ìl suffix.
  
• the direct object of the verb receives the -ti or -t or -it suffix.
• 
  
  Oel ngati kame
  I see you
  
  Taronyul taron yerikit
  The hunter hunts the hexapede
  
  EXCEPT:
  
  
• in sentences where there is a modal verb:
      <subject> <modal verb> <second verb> <direct object of "second verb">-ti
  
      Oe tsun tsa'ut tsive'a
      I can see that
  
      Oe new rivun swizawit
      I want to find the arrow
  
      EXCEPT:
          Special case if you put your modal sentence in this word order:
              <subject>-l <direct object of "second verb">-ti <modal verb><second verb>
               
               Poel tìngayit var wivan
               She continues to hide the truth
               
               Oel lì'fyati sngä'i nivume
               I begin to learn a language
• 
               
  
  
  IF you are using a transitive verb that can also take a dative indirect object:
  
      If you are specifying all the nouns in the sentence:
  
  
• the subject gets -l
  
• the direct object gets -ti
  
• the indirect object gets -ru
  
  
• 
  Oel ngaru oeyä tskoti tìng
  I give you my bow.
  
  Poanìl oeru lì'fyati kar
  He teaches me the language.

[Luciancanad]

So... it depends on the verb having a direct object... and an indirect one for the dative? If the object has been omitted or doesn't exist (Oe tslam), then I suppress both the suffixes?