Re: No sun this day?

[Tirea Aean]

Also keep in mind that all verbs in Na'vi are either imperfective or perfective.  If it is not explicitly stated, that just means it is clear from context, not that it isn't one or the other.  Granted, it is often not specified as it is pretty clear from context, but it is never wrong to state aspect explicitly.

TIL

Fascinating little tidbit.

[Carborundum]

Also keep in mind that all verbs in Na'vi are either imperfective or perfective.  If it is not explicitly stated, that just means it is clear from context, not that it isn't one or the other.  Granted, it is often not specified as it is pretty clear from context, but it is never wrong to state aspect explicitly.

What is your source for this? Is this some inherent quality of all languages that use aspects, or is it specific to Na'vi?

This statement seems every bit as odd to me as if you'd said that Na'vi verbs are always either past or future tense, but perhaps this is some linguistic intricacy I am not yet aware of.

[omängum fra'uti]

Also keep in mind that all verbs in Na'vi are either imperfective or perfective.  If it is not explicitly stated, that just means it is clear from context, not that it isn't one or the other.  Granted, it is often not specified as it is pretty clear from context, but it is never wrong to state aspect explicitly.

What is your source for this? Is this some inherent quality of all languages that use aspects, or is it specific to Na'vi?

This statement seems every bit as odd to me as if you'd said that Na'vi verbs are always either past or future tense, but perhaps this is some linguistic intricacy I am not yet aware of.

It was from Frommer in response to an email making sure I understood the tense/aspect infixes enough for my next lesson, not that I ever got around to finishing the lesson yet, heh.

I can post it in the language updates if people think it's really that interesting.  To me it was just a verification of what I already knew.  But the basic summary is this...

Tense: You are right, it would be odd to say that verbs are always past or future.  There are, as we know, five tenses.  It just happens that present tense is the same form as uninflected for tense.  (I imagine it would be potentially correct, however, to say that verbs always have a tense, however explicitly stating the tense may not change the verb, since it could very well be present tense.  However, I'm not 100% sure that some of the grammatical uses of, eg subjunctive, would have tense.)

Aspect: However for aspect, rather than five, there are only two.  And both are explicitly marked.  When you don't use either, it's not because they don't apply, it's merely because it's unimportant* or clear from context.  Frommer's words on the matter were "If you just use the root, you're leaving aspect unmarked, assuming it's unimportant or clear from context."  (I'm not sure if he 100% understood exactly what I was asking as he answered a lot more than that, but that sentence seemed to answer my question pretty clearly.)

* You might wonder, then, if verbs are always either perfective or imperfective, when would it be unimportant?  Well, as an example I've had this idea bouncing about my head about how which form could subtly change the attitude with which you answered a question.  For example, consider this conversation...  (Note that this is all my conjecture, nothing I've gotten actual word either way on.)

A: Trram kempe s<?>i nga?
B: T<?>aron.

What aspect is A's question?  Well, it could really be either.  If it was just curiosity, about the activities or accomplishments, it might be perfective.  The expected response, then, would just be an event, not a tale of what happened.  If the question was because A was looking for B yesterday and wanted to know why they were available, then imperfective would possibly make more sense, because they are looking for more than just a simple answer, but an explanation.

What about B's answer?  Well, if A gave an aspect, likely they would follow suit (though not necessarily).  However, since the aspect is clear from context at that point, there's no reason to state it.  However, if B didn't feel like explaining and just wanted to say "I hunted" and that was that, they might specifically use perfective.  (If the question was phrased imperfective, my thinking is there would be an unspoken subtext of "And I don't want to talk about it.")  On the other hand, if there was an amazing kill that they really wanted to talk about, they might phrase the answer as imperfective, and possibly follow it up with something more.  (If there is no follow up from B when they specifically use the imperfective when A didn't, I'm thinking the unspoken subtext is "I want to elaborate on it," offering an invitation to ask about it.)

So when would it make it unimportant?  Well say A was just curious and didn't specify aspect.  It wasn't particularly notably bad or good, so B doesn't specifically not want to talk about it, but doesn't specifically want to talk about it either.  They would probably answer without aspect again.  At that point, both the question and answer could be taken as either perfective or imperfective.  The lack of aspect would, in turn, convey that it was nothing exceptional, but leaves the option for A to ask for details if they want.

[Carborundum]

Very interesting. That makes a lot of sense, actually.

[Tanri]

This is really interesting and worth to notice somewhere, especially the part about nonexistence of verbs without aspect.
Thank you, ma omängum fra'uti, for posting that.

This makes Na'vi a little closer to slavic languages and their perfective/imperfective pairs of verbs. It is almost impossible for me to say something in czech, entirely without aspect, because every verb form has aspect already "embedded" in itself.
The information about meaning of aspect in questions and responses is completely new to me, i never attempted to think about aspect in these consequencies.
Tsari oe irayo sereiyi nìtxan.

[Sireayä mokri]

This makes Na'vi a little closer to slavic languages and their perfective/imperfective pairs of verbs.

That's an interesting observation, ma Tanri. I was never really trying to draw direct parallels between Russian and Na'vi aspects, but I think I could pay more attention to that now.

[omängum fra'uti]

This is really interesting and worth to notice somewhere, especially the part about nonexistence of verbs without aspect.
Thank you, ma omängum fra'uti, for posting that.

This makes Na'vi a little closer to slavic languages and their perfective/imperfective pairs of verbs. It is almost impossible for me to say something in czech, entirely without aspect, because every verb form has aspect already "embedded" in itself.
The information about meaning of aspect in questions and responses is completely new to me, i never attempted to think about aspect in these consequencies.
Tsari oe irayo sereiyi nìtxan.

That part was purely my speculation.  However, I am notably non-linguistic and just speculating based on no knowledge except what I've learned to learn Na'vi.  Others with more language skills have been known many times to disprove my speculation in the past.

[Tanri]

That part was purely my speculation.  However, I am notably non-linguistic and just speculating based on no knowledge except what I've learned to learn Na'vi.  Others with more language skills have been known many times to disprove my speculation in the past.

Speculation, but beautiful speculation. Indeed, such a speculations are often rejected, but sometimes accepted. This is a destiny of speculations.
Aylì'u a lu na pum ngeyä, lu tìseykxel a tsal 'ärìp lì'fyati leNa'vi ne zusawkrr.