fte vs. fpi

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì, ma smukan.  I have a vocabulary question for you:

What is the difference between fte and fpi?  If you could give me examples--attested usages would be particularly awesome--i would be most grateful.

Irayo, ulte Eywa ayngahu.

[NeotrekkerZ]

fpi means for (the sake of), fte means so that.  The first is a preposition, the second a conjunction.  Examples:

I built this for you:  Oel txolula futa fpi nga

I'll stay so you can go:  Oe 'ayì'awn fte nga tsun kivä

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Actually, fpi is an adposition. I don't know why Taronyu changed what he calls them in the dictionary because preposition implies that they can only go before the noun.

[Kì'eyawn]

Actually, fpi is an adposition. I don't know why Taronyu changed what he calls them in the dictionary because preposition implies that they can only go before the noun.

So, calling it an adposition means it can go on either side of the word it modifies?

Also, i've been a little confused since in the examples we have of adpositions being used they're sometimes attached to the word they modify (like ngahu) and sometimes not.  I suppose it's technically a moot point, since Na'vi isn't really a written language, but still... are there rules for that somewhere that i missed?

Irayo, ulte Eywa ngahu

[kewnya txamew'itan]

They only attach if they follow the noun. So ngahu = hu nga not hunga.

Even if the space is primarily a written consideration, you can hear the pause in between words.

[Erimeyz]

I've been assuming that Frommer's orthography indicates words as the Na'vi themselves consider them.  I.e. the Na'vi have a concept of "word", and they view "hu nga" as two words but "ngahu" as only one.

Why?  Beats me.  But I don't think Frommer would have invented an orthographic convention that had no verbal linguistic significance for a verbal-only language.

  - Eri