Kempe/Pehem

[Seseni]

Kaltxi ma frapo...

I have a quick question. In the Na'vi in a Nutshell guide, the word kempe/pehem is translated to What(action)?
I tried to come up with a few sentences using this, but I was unsuccessful. No matter what I formulated, it seemed like 'upe/peu was the better option.

Could someone clarify kempe/pehem's use or perhaps provide some examples?

Irayo!

[Alyara Arati]

Here's something I just finished writing in a story, so I know it's usable:
Slä pehem alahe tsun oe sivi?
But what else can I do?

I originally tried to use peu there with kem si as my verb, but since I'm talking about "what other action can I take?" I needed pehem or kempe (where the "kem" from "kem si" gets "pe" directly attached to it).  Thanks to my teacher for explaining this to me; I hope I was semi-clear.

[wm.annis]

The main use is in si-verbs, I think... nga pehem si? "what are you doing?"  That's the only official use we've seen so far, at any rate.

[Seseni]

The main use is in si-verbs, I think... nga pehem si? "what are you doing?"  That's the only official use we've seen so far, at any rate.

Oh, okay, I wasn't sure if that was legal do to, thanks for clearing that up!

Here's something I just finished writing in a story, so I know it's usable:
Slä pehem alahe tsun oe sivi?
But what else can I do?

I originally tried to use peu there with kem si as my verb, but since I'm talking about "what other action can I take?" I needed pehem or kempe (where the "kem" from "kem si" gets "pe" directly attached to it).  Thanks to my teacher for explaining this to me; I hope I was semi-clear.

Yes, that was clear, thanks for the example!

[Carborundum]

Here's something I just finished writing in a story, so I know it's usable:
Slä pehem alahe tsun oe sivi?
But what else can I do?

I originally tried to use peu there with kem si as my verb, but since I'm talking about "what other action can I take?" I needed pehem or kempe (where the "kem" from "kem si" gets "pe" directly attached to it).  Thanks to my teacher for explaining this to me; I hope I was semi-clear.

This is incorrect. Si cannot function as a standalone verb. The correct way to say 'what else can I do?' would be tsun oe lahea pehem sivi?.

(Note that 'what else can I do?' is often a rhetorical question in English. At this time it is not known how Na'vi handles rhetorics.)

[Le'eylan]

The main use is in si-verbs, I think... nga pehem si? "what are you doing?"  That's the only official use we've seen so far, at any rate.

Well we have the other way around; "Kempe si nga?" from the movie as well.

[Sireayä mokri]

This is incorrect. Si cannot function as a standalone verb. The correct way to say 'what else can I do?' would be tsun oe lahea pehem sivi?.

Can I see a quote from Frommer?

['Oma Tirea]

Here's something I just finished writing in a story, so I know it's usable:
Slä pehem alahe tsun oe sivi?
But what else can I do?

I originally tried to use peu there with kem si as my verb, but since I'm talking about "what other action can I take?" I needed pehem or kempe (where the "kem" from "kem si" gets "pe" directly attached to it).  Thanks to my teacher for explaining this to me; I hope I was semi-clear.

This is incorrect. Si cannot function as a standalone verb. The correct way to say 'what else can I do?' would be tsun oe lahea pehem sivi?.

The si is indirectly attached to the pehem in the same sentence... however what you're saying is that they can't be split up, kefyak?

[Carborundum]

This is incorrect. Si cannot function as a standalone verb. The correct way to say 'what else can I do?' would be tsun oe lahea pehem sivi?.

Can I see a quote from Frommer?

http://wiki.learnnavi.org/index.php/Canon#Auxilary_verb_SI

The si is indirectly attached to the pehem in the same sentence... however what you're saying is that they can't be split up, kefyak?

Exactly. At least, they can't be split up by anything other than ke and rä'ä.

[Sireayä mokri]

What that quote says is you can't use si on its own, unless the "non-verbal element" is clear from the context. What I meant was has Frommer ever said that you can't put anything between non-verbal part and si?

[Carborundum]

What that quote says is you can't use si on its own, unless the "non-verbal element" is clear from the context. What I meant was has Frommer ever said that you can't put anything between non-verbal part and si?

Hmm. To my knowledge, no, he has never explicitly said so. However, not a one of the plethora of si-verbs we have seen so far has used any other syntax than N/ADJ (KE/RÄ'Ä) SI, so I'd be supremely surprised if any other syntax was allowed.

[Sireayä mokri]

I'd be supremely surprised if any other syntax was allowed.

Well, frankly, I'd be surprised if it wouldn't be. I really haven't ever questioned the possibility of something like kawkem ke tsun oe sivi etc., considering free word order.

[Carborundum]

I'd be supremely surprised if any other syntax was allowed.

Well, frankly, I'd be surprised if it wouldn't be. I really haven't ever questioned the possibility of something like kawkem ke tsun oe sivi etc., considering free word order.

And I had never actually considered the possibility of such a constructions existence. But I suppose there's no real reason to discard it as false, although there are plenty of reasons to doubt it.
If it is allowed, I'd expect it to be exceedingly rare, seeing as how we have never seen anything like it so far. The only place where I would accept it without comment is in poetry, where pretty much anything goes anyway.

[Sireayä mokri]

If it is allowed, I'd expect it to be exceedingly rare, seeing as how we have never seen anything like it so far.

I think this may be a matter of preference: maybe Pawl just doesn't prefer to speak this way. Or it may depend on situation or context (not necessarily only poetry). We'll have to wait and see, I guess

[wm.annis]

If it is allowed, I'd expect it to be exceedingly rare, seeing as how we have never seen anything like it so far.

I think this may be a matter of preference:

It is not.  Frommer has said that the order is fixed X { ke | rä'ä } si, with the single exception of the verb irayo si, which has more flexibility.

[Sireayä mokri]

Frommer has said

It says that it always should be "noun si" and never "si noun". However:

From examples like "tsakem rä'ä si", I'd imagine adverbs like rä'ä and possibly also ke could be slipped in between, but no comment on that as I hadn't asked.

[omängum fra'uti]

It says that it always should be "noun si" and never "si noun". However:

From examples like "tsakem rä'ä si", I'd imagine adverbs like rä'ä and possibly also ke could be slipped in between, but no comment on that as I hadn't asked.

That has sense been clarified that rä'ä and ke must come before the si, slipping in between the non-verbal element and si, but no other words may do that, that we know of.

HOWEVER, it is possible for si to stand on its own if context is clear, but "*kawkem ke tsun oe sivi" is not how.  My favorite example of si taking from context is "Oel tsole'a kemit a nga soli tsatsenge" - I see what you did there.  The example Frommer gave (As reported in http://forum.learnnavi.org/language-updates/auxilary-verb-si-possessive-dative-krr/) is..

Nga tsap'alute soli srak?
Did you apologize?
Soli.
(I) did (apologize).

[wm.annis]

I have decided to bring together everything we know about si-verbs — with citations — In the Deep 'Si'.