[answered] how do "If" and "Then" work?

[C'tri Atan'itan]

Hey guys, time to bring up my latest question about the wonderful language that is Na'vi.
How does one say "If <something> then <something else>"?

explanation and an example or two would be hugely appreciated
~C'tri

[Edit] conclusions:

txo... tsakrr and krr a. Txo <X> tsakrr <Y> implies that X may happen, or may not happen at all. Krr a <X>, on the other hand, implies that <X> is bound to happen sooner or later, only we don't know when.

I think this sums up the two pieces of vocabulary I needed most from this, thank you all for the input and discussions, it was enlightening (albeit beyond me ^^)

I'll edit the OP with the conclusion for those searching in future

[Skxawng]

you'd use 'if' txo  and then the compariative marker to for 'than'

so

txo ke fì'u to tsa'u
"if not this thing than that thing"

[Tirea Aean]

I dont think that would work. because "if ___then" is not a comparison. than is for stuff like A is better than B...the word then is for time...times when A is true are times when B happens. If A then B.

Txo____, tsakrr______.

<just my thoughts>
--Spirit BLue

[Unil Akawng]

Kaltxì!

It is Txo <X> tsakrr <Y>. Consider the following example from the Hunt Song:
   
Pxan livu txo nì'aw oe ngari
Tsakrr nga Na'viru yomtìyìng

EDIT: Ah, I'm obviously typing too slowly

[kewnya txamew'itan]

you'd use 'if' txo  and then the compariative marker to for 'than'

so

txo ke fì'u to tsa'u
"if not this thing than that thing"

kehe.

I dont think that would work. because "if ___then" is not a comparison. than is for stuff like A is better than B...the word then is for time...times when A is true are times when B happens. If A then B.

Txo____, tsakrr______.

<just my thoughts>
--Spirit BLue

Kaltxì!

It is Txo <X> tsakrr <Y>. Consider the following example from the Hunt Song:
   
Pxan livu txo nì'aw oe ngari
Tsakrr nga Na'viru yomtìyìng

EDIT: Ah, I'm obviously typing too slowly

Given other examples I'd say this was an example of poetic licence.

Also, as tirea aean notes, tsakrr is for times so if you used tsakrr you could just say "{y} tsakrr a {x}" with {x} in the subjunctive, it renders the txo unnecessary.

With the txo it makes littles sense as well as it would be "if {x} that time {y}" in which case a then is still needed to keep it sensical.



The general rule is that no then is used.

e.g. the Frommerian txo nga new rivey, oehu!

as you can see here, he's just said "if {x} {y}" and this seems more likely to be the norm to me, also, you would probably want a subjunctive with any verb in the second clause (in this case there isn't one as it's ellided).

[Skxawng]

completely read in the original post 'then' as 'than'

whupsie

[Unil Akawng]

Given other examples I'd say this was an example of poetic licence.

I doubt that poetic license would be a valid reason for Karyu Pawl to construct an un-grammatical sentence, though. Still, I agree that tsakrr can be safely omitted, just as in English "then" is not always required after "if".

Also, as tirea aean notes, tsakrr is for times so if you used tsakrr you could just say "{y} tsakrr a {x}" with {x} in the subjunctive, it renders the txo unnecessary.

With the txo it makes littles sense as well as it would be "if {x} that time {y}" in which case a then is still needed to keep it sensical.

It depends on the way Na'vi handles the "if... then" constructions. It does't have to be the same way they are handled in English. For instance in Russian "тогда" can mean both "then" and "at that time". Tsakrr in Na'vi works the same, according to Taronyu's dictionary.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

To me that seems like an even bigger reason not to use it.

if {x} at that time {y} is understandable but, if we reverse the clause order which is acceptable we get "at that time {y} if {x}" which makes no sense, you might possibly be able to make it sensical by adding an "a" on tsakrr but then the if would be required to not be there as it would make no sense and this changes the meaning to imply a single coincidence.

As I say, it's still understandable and poems often stray from usual rules even when the language has barely changed since they were written whereas na'vi has changed an awful lot since the hunting song was written.

Also, consider this, given the usage in the hunting song, it would seem that ... txo ... tsakrr ... was equivalent to krr a (the time that I am worthy will you feed the people) and, given the sparsity of vocab Frommer (let alone we) had it would seem unlikely that he would create a synonymous phrase with some quite large gaps.

For these reasons I stand by the ... txo ... tsakrr ... construction being poetic and the txo ... ... being the normal form. What I'm trying to say is that they're from different registers, the ... txo ... tsakrr ... is clearly from a poetic register that given its ritual nature is likely to be quite formal whilst the txo ... ... is the form from the conversational register's version and it's possible that they share a common root (or that the conversational form is the poetic form with an elided tsakrr) but, given the nature of most of our posts and translations on the forum (excluding the bible and possible some other translation projects), in general, the txo ... ... form would be more appropriate.

[Ftiafpi]

completely read in the original post 'then' as 'than'

whupsie

Don't feel bad, I did the same thing.

[Unil Akawng]

if {x} at that time {y} is understandable but, if we reverse the clause order which is acceptable we get "at that time {y} if {x}" which makes no sense, you might possibly be able to make it sensical by adding an "a" on tsakrr but then the if would be required to not be there as it would make no sense and this changes the meaning to imply a single coincidence.

Agree with the above, except that reversal of the clause order is not acceptable, in my opinion. "Free word order" in Na'vi means only that the "subject-object-verb" order is free. The conditional clause, on the other hand, should still be ordered in a certain way to make sense.

Also, consider this, given the usage in the hunting song, it would seem that ... txo ... tsakrr ... was equivalent to krr a (the time that I am worthy will you feed the people) and, given the sparsity of vocab Frommer (let alone we) had it would seem unlikely that he would create a synonymous phrase with some quite large gaps.

Um, no, not quite. I think there is an important difference between between txo... tsakrr and krr a. Txo <X> tsakrr <Y> implies that X may happen, or may not happen at all. Krr a <X>, on the other hand, implies that <X> is bound to happen sooner or later, only we don't know when.

In the hunt song, the hunter asks the prey to feed the people now, but only if he is worthy; not some time in the future when he is worthy. Hence, txo... tsakrr. (Sorry if this explanation sounds somewhat vague; it's just that my English skill is currently being stretched to the limit ).

As for the vocabulary, Frommer could come up with any word he needed, any time, so that constraint is not really applicable to him.

For these reasons I stand by the ... txo ... tsakrr ... construction being poetic and the txo ... ... being the normal form. What I'm trying to say is that they're from different registers, the ... txo ... tsakrr ... is clearly from a poetic register that given its ritual nature is likely to be quite formal whilst the txo ... ... is the form from the conversational register's version and it's possible that they share a common root (or that the conversational form is the poetic form with an elided tsakrr) but, given the nature of most of our posts and translations on the forum (excluding the bible and possible some other translation projects), in general, the txo ... ... form would be more appropriate.

So, we seem to agree that tsakrr, while not required in a conditional clause, is still grammatically valid.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

1. Given the wide variety of clause orders Frommer's used I'm inclined to say that reversing the clause order (provided conjunctions still stay in their proper places) is acceptable.

2. Point taken, I was approaching it the wrong way, krr a is a different (but a slightly similar) construction.

3. I guess, it makes me uneasy but, as I've said is clearly acceptable in a poetic/ritual register. I suppose the main reason for this is that it seems too close to English.

And your English was fine, I wouldn't have known it wasn't your native language if you hadn't said or signature didn't contain Cyrillic.

[C'tri Atan'itan]

txo... tsakrr and krr a. Txo <X> tsakrr <Y> implies that X may happen, or may not happen at all. Krr a <X>, on the other hand, implies that <X> is bound to happen sooner or later, only we don't know when.

I think this sums up the two pieces of vocabulary I needed most from this, thank you all for the input and discussions, it was enlightening (albeit beyond me ^^)

I'll edit the OP with the conclusion for those searching in future