Grammar Check, please.

[Kemaweyan]

That's perfective when that's done. And if it does matter, then use -ol-. In this example he saw her and it causes his next actions, so it does matter that the action is done.

[Stranger Come Knocking]

That's perfective when that's done. And if it does matter, then use -ol-. In this example he saw her and it causes his next actions, so it does matter that the action is done.

So then in something like

Marek: Oengal holpxìyay aytanhìti.

Poel nolìn tawit.

nìn becomes nolìn because she is reacting to his suggestion?

[Kemaweyan]

Marek: Oengal holpxìyay aytanhìti.

No, he says what they will do. This action could not be perfective.

Pol nolìn tawit.[/b]

Right.

[Stranger Come Knocking]

Marek: Oengal holpxìyay aytanhìti.

No, he says what they will do. This action could not be perfective.

holpxay is the actual verb if that is what you are referring to. >_> I didn't add that.

[Kemaweyan]

Yeah, holpxay is a noun and you can't use infixes with it, but I meant another thing. If I understand it right, this example is from that text which you sent me recently, isn't it? So it's an answer:

  Bethany: What are you thinking?
  Mark: We'll count the stars. ← this

There is future tense, he says what they will do. This action is not done, so it is imperfective.

[Carborundum]

Marekìl terìran kxamlä na'rìngit.  Pol tsole'a Petaniti.

This is weird. Switching between imperfective and perfective aspect like this makes about as much sense as switching between two opposing tenses. For example, you wouldn't say:

*Marek tayìran kxamlä na'rìng. Pol tsame'a Petaniti.

Stick with one aspect and one tense. Don't mix them.

[Stranger Come Knocking]

Marekìl terìran kxamlä na'rìngit.  Pol tsole'a Petaniti.

This is weird. Switching between imperfective and perfective aspect like this makes about as much sense as switching between two opposing tenses. For example, you wouldn't say:

*Marek tayìran kxamlä na'rìng. Pol tsame'a Petaniti.

Stick with one aspect and one tense. Don't mix them.

*facedesk* I'm still new to the whole "im/perfective" thing.  I speak English.  We have first, second, and third person; past, present, and future tense; hot dogs, chili dogs, and corn dogs.  But I digress. :3 Are the uses the same across all languages or does it change?

[Kemaweyan]

Marekìl terìran kxamlä na'rìngit.  Pol tsole'a Petaniti.

This is weird. Switching between imperfective and perfective aspect like this makes about as much sense as switching between two opposing tenses. For example, you wouldn't say:

*Marek tayìran kxamlä na'rìng. Pol tsame'a Petaniti.

Stick with one aspect and one tense. Don't mix them.

Hmm.. I used just present tenses.. I don't think that it's impossible.. He is walking - this action is imperfect, but then he saw her - I think it couldn't be imperfect, it would be perfect only (he saw here at the first moment when he looked at her and then this action is perfect). Why not? -ol- does not mean past tense.

[Stranger Come Knocking]

Hmm.. I used just present tenses.. I don't think that it's impossible.. He is walking - this action is imperfect, but then he saw her - I think it couldn't be imperfect, it would be perfect only (he saw here at the first moment when he looked at her and then this action is perfect). Why not? -ol- does not mean past tense.

| <ol> | have verbed | tolaron | have hunted |

Unless you are reading something different or NiaN is wrong. Is there more than one -ol-? *confused*

[Kemaweyan]

And I'm confused Why do you think that tolaron/have hunted is the past tense? It's present perfect tense. I have hunted now, it's important now and does not matter when the hunting happened. Otherwise I would use -alm-, i.e. had hunted (past perfect).

[Carborundum]

Marekìl terìran kxamlä na'rìngit.  Pol tsole'a Petaniti.

This is weird. Switching between imperfective and perfective aspect like this makes about as much sense as switching between two opposing tenses. For example, you wouldn't say:

*Marek tayìran kxamlä na'rìng. Pol tsame'a Petaniti.

Stick with one aspect and one tense. Don't mix them.

Hmm.. I used just present tenses.. I don't think that it's impossible.. He is walking - this action is imperfect, but then he saw her - I think it couldn't be imperfect, it would be perfect only (he saw here at the first moment when he looked at her and then this action is perfect). Why not? -ol- does not mean past tense.

C.f. English:

Mark is walking through the forest. He has seen Bethany.

These sentences are both in present tense, and yet the different aspects (progressive and perfective) make for an incoherent narrative. What you want to say is:

Mark is walking through he forest. (While doing so,) He sees Bethany.

This is just plain present tense. No need for aspects, neither in English nor Na'vi.

[Stranger Come Knocking]

And I'm confused Why do you think that tolaron/have hunted is the past tense? It's present perfect tense.

In elementary school, this is used as past tense.  Past participle if I remember correctly.

Tute: What have you been doing?
Tutan: I have hunted for our clan. (I hunted in the past and am now returning.)

I have hunted now, it's important now and does not matter when the hunting happened. Otherwise I would use -alm-, i.e. had hunted (past perfect).

>.< Again with the im/perfective. *takes a step back* All right, so let me see if I've got this:

1) If Action A affects and/or causes Action B, Action B is perfective.  
I kick you, so you beat me up.

2) If Action A is normally imperfective, but is important/relevant to the conversation, it is perfective.
-Where were you?
-I hunted for the clan.

3) If Action A is ongoing, it is imperfective.
I am talking to you.

Srak? :3

Spoiler

Main point of this part was to practice my counting. :3 Only a few verbs.
---
Marek ultxa si hu Petaniti mì tonur.

Marek: Oel ngati kameie.
Petani: Oel ngati kameie.

Marek lu letìfnu.

Petani: Kempet lu ngal fpìl teri?
Marek: Oengal holpxìyay aytanhìti.

Pol nolìn tawit.

Petani: Tsatseng?
Marek: 'Aw, mune, pxey, tsìng...
Petani: Mrr, pukap, kinä, vol...Fo lu lor.
Marek: Nga lu lor nìteng.
Petani: Oe omum.

Marek hangham ulte nìn tawit.

Marek: 'Aw, mune, pxey, tsìng, mrr, pukap, kinä, vol...
Petani: Volaw, vomun, vopey, vosìng, vomrr, vofu, vohin...

***

Mark meets Bethany in the night.

Mark: I missed you.
Bethany: I missed you.

Mark is silent.

Bethany: What are you thinking about?
Mark: We'll count the stars.

She looks up at the sky.

Bethany: There?
Mark: One, two, three, four...
Bethany: Five, six, seven, eight...They are beautiful.
Mark: You are beautiful, too.
Bethany: I know.

He laughs and looks at the sky.

Mark: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight...
Bethany: Nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen...

[Carborundum]

Read this.

[Stranger Come Knocking]

The statement "I went to the store" is what linguists call perfective — it presents the action as a single event from start to finish, ignoring any details of the internal steps.  The statement "I was going to the store" is imperfective and presents the action as ongoing.  In most languages with aspect, starting off a conversation with an imperfect strongly implies that you've only set the stage to describe more actions, to be mentioned shortly.

This is all I've needed to read.  A simple, direct explanation. Thank you, Carborundum.

btw, I have a whole slew of questions awaiting your wisdom here.