Noun is for Noun? Describing with Adpositions

[Kame Ayyo’koti]

Oe pamrel sarmi vurur recently, and I needed to write a sentence like this:

"The place is for animals." (Think of a zoo or nature park.)

Other sentences like this would be:

"The cup is for water."
"The meeting is after dusk."
"The tree is like a mountain."
"The book is about cute cats."

I don't think I've seen a sentence like this in Na'vi, so I'm not sure how to say it. These are not about being at a physical place, so tok wouldn't be used here. (Would it?)

I know that when Lu is used by itself in front of a sentence, it means "There is", so:
Lu utral.
Attempted meaning: There is (a) tree.

But that expression basically means "it exists," as in, "A tree exists. And now we're going to talk about it." The sentences above are telling us about the nouns. They are descriptions, like the usual NOUN-lu-ADJ constructions:

Utral lu tsawl.
A.m.: The tree is big.

So would they follow the same construction?

Tsenge lu fpi ay-ioang.
A.m.: The place is for animals.

Tsngal lu pay-fpi.
A.m.: The cup is for water.

Ultxa lu maw txon'ong.
A.m.: The meeting is after dusk.
(Use tok for this? It is "at" a place in time?)

Utral lu na ram.
A.m.: The tree is like a mountain.

Fì-puk lu teri hona ay-falulukan-tsyìp.
A.m.: This book is about cute cats.

[Plumps]

Oe pamrel sarmi vurteri

Oe pamrel sarmi vurur... is also possible.

"The place is for animals." (Think of a zoo or nature park.)

...

I don't think I've seen a sentence like this in Na'vi, so I'm not sure how to say it. These are not about being at a physical place, so tok wouldn't be used here. (Would it?)

Correct.

I know that when Lu is used by itself in front of a sentence, it means "There is", so:
Lu utral.
Attempted meaning: There is (a) tree.

Yes.

So would they follow the same construction?

Tsenge lu fpi ay-ioang.
A.m.: The place is for animals.

You would be understood ... but I'm still doubtful to use fpi in this sense of "for". Look at this thread where something to this extent is explained; Sentence (4) says:

Stxelit fpole' oel ngafpi. 'I sent the gift for you.' -- i.e. I sent it to someone else for your sake. (Perhaps you were sick and not able to get out, so I sent it on your behalf.)

fpi is "for the sake of". Does the place exist for the sake of the animals? Maybe that is English semantics that I can't grasp...

Ultxa lu maw txon'ong.
A.m.: The meeting is after dusk.
(Use tok for this? It is "at" a place in time?)

Since we don't have a word of "take place" yet, this is the best we've got I wouldn't use tok here and I've never seen it used with adpositions of time.

[Blue Elf]

Oe pamrel sarmi vurteri

Oe pamrel sarmi vurur... is also possible.

IMHO it is the only possible way. "Oe pamrel sarmi vurteri" sounds different - like you've read story and now you write about this story (essay, homework....)

"The place is for animals." (Think of a zoo or nature park.)

...

I don't think I've seen a sentence like this in Na'vi, so I'm not sure how to say it. These are not about being at a physical place, so tok wouldn't be used here. (Would it?)

Correct.

Or we can rewrite sentence with different words (although this version looks clumsy):
Fkol ngop fìtsengit fte ayioang tsivun rivey fìtsenge -> This place was created in order to animal could live here

I know that when Lu is used by itself in front of a sentence, it means "There is", so:
Lu utral.
Attempted meaning: There is (a) tree.

Yes.

But "Lu utral" seems like incomplete sentence. Where is tree, what is tree? I think we need to add something - either place - but then it is work for tok, or possibly different verb?
Fìtsenget tok utral - There's tree here.
Fkeytok utral - There's tree (tree exists)
What others think about it?

The cup is for water.

Fkol yem payti nemfa tsngal -> Water is put into cup.

The meeting is after dusk.

Ultxa len txon'ongmaw -> Meeting occurs after dusk.

Rewording often helps when words are missing or one is unsure how to use them correctly (as rule says: ..translate meaning, not the words). Often you also have more options how to translate something.

[Tìtstewan]

I know that when Lu is used by itself in front of a sentence, it means "There is", so: Lu utral. Attempted meaning: There is (a) tree. Yes. But "Lu utral" seems like incomplete sentence. Where is tree, what is tree? I think we need to add something - either place - but then it is work for tok, or possibly different verb? Fìtsenget tok utral - There's tree here. Fkeytok utral - There's tree (tree exists) What others think about it?

This look indeed uncomplete. I expected there "Tsatsenget tok utralìl.".

The cup is for water. Fkol yem payti nemfa tsngal -> Water is put into cup.

Maybe I misunderstood this, but the sentence which the OP means has not the same meaning like your example.
I thought about following idea:
Tsngal sar hu pay
Use a cup with water
or
Fìtsngal lu fpi tìsusar hu pay.
This cup is for the use with water.

[Blue Elf]

This look indeed uncomplete. I expected there "Tsatsengel tok utralit.". But if it is mean as an existence, not in the sense of occupy a place, "Tsatsenge lu utralur."

You need change case endings on your first example (Tsatsenget tok utralìl (tree occupies this-place)). You've written "this-place occupies tree" (so not "tree is located on this place", but "this place is located on tree"). It's probably not true
Second example means "tree has this-place", so it has not desired meaning.

The cup is for water. Fkol yem payti nemfa tsngal -> Water is put into cup.

Maybe I misunderstood this, but the sentence which the OP means has not the same meaning like your example.
I thought about following idea:
Tsngal sar hu pay
Use a cup with water
or
Fìtsngal lu fpi tìsusar hu pay.
This cup is for the use with water.

"Cup is for water" means IMO the same as "One puts water into cup". It says what you can put into cup.
Using hu in your examples looks not correct, hu is for accompaniment, but cup is not not accompanied by water, cup is filled in by water (water is put inside).

[Tìtstewan]

Spoiler: snip

This look indeed uncomplete. I expected there "Tsatsengel tok utralit.". But if it is mean as an existence, not in the sense of occupy a place, "Tsatsenge lu utralur."

You need change case endings on your first example (Tsatsenget tok utralìl (tree occupies this-place)). You've written "this-place occupies tree" (so not "tree is located on this place", but "this place is located on tree"). It's probably not true
Second example means "tree has this-place", so it has not desired meaning.

Fixed.

Spoiler: snip The cup is for water. Fkol yem payti nemfa tsngal -> Water is put into cup. Maybe I misunderstood this, but the sentence which the OP means has not the same meaning like your example. I thought about following idea: Tsngal sar hu pay Use a cup with water or Fìtsngal lu fpi tìsusar hu pay. This cup is for the use with water. "Cup is for water" means IMO the same as "One puts water into cup". It says what you can put into cup. Using hu in your examples looks not correct, hu is for accompaniment, but cup is not not accompanied by water, cup is filled in by water (water is put inside).

But, if I ask you "For what use is this cup?", you would not answere "One puts water into cup".

As for hu, I refer me on this:

2. mesyalhu a ikran I like that the best. Seems quite natural.

...otherwise, we should need a "with" without with accompaniment (hu) or with help of (fa)...

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

But, if I ask you "For what use is this cup?", you would not answere "One puts water into cup".

Yet in English, this is a perfectly reasonable answer.

The lack of a word for 'for' is one of the biggest stumblingblocks I encounter with Naʼvi.

You could also use ioangä tsenge for 'zoo'.

[Kame Ayyo’koti]

Oe pamrel sarmi vurur... is also possible.

IMHO it is the only possible way. "Oe pamrel sarmi vurteri" sounds different - like you've read story and now you write about this story (essay, homework....)

Yes, I realized that after Plumps wrote his reply. I felt -ur sounded like what you write on/in, but after some research I realized that doesn't make any sense. My whole original post is an example of me thinking too hard about some things, and not thinking hard enough about other things. 

But "Lu utral" seems like incomplete sentence. Where is tree, what is tree? I think we need to add something - either place - but then it is work for tok, or possibly different verb?
Fìtsenget tok utral - There's tree here.
Fkeytok utral - There's tree (tree exists)
What others think about it?

I read this in Na'vi in a Nutshell, Section 9.2:

9.2 There is
There is is achieved by using lu at the start of a sentence

The only other example of this usage I found at 6.18.4.4 of Annis's grammar ref:

lu tìkin a ... there is a need to/for ...

But that could be an idiom for tìkin.

You could also use ioangä tsenge for 'zoo'.

Wow... I can't believe I didn't think of that! Sometimes I guess I just think too hard about how to translate or explain things. Irayo, ma `Eylan Ayfalulukanä.

But, if I ask you "For what use is this cup?", you would not answere "One puts water into cup".

Yet in English, this is a perfectly reasonable answer.

The lack of a word for 'for' is one of the biggest stumblingblocks I encounter with Naʼvi.

That's correct, (in English) it would make sense to say, "One puts water into cup", although it does sound a tad strange/formal.

I thought fpi+ serves the function of for? Or is there a subtle difference between what it really means and what I'm asking about? I see no difference.

Maybe some confusion is over the use of "lu" (is). I'm trying to use it to describe the noun, like we do with adjectives ("Tsawke lu rim."). Maybe it helps to think of it as "exists":
Tsenge fkeytok ay-ioang-fpi.
A.m.: The place exists for animals.

Tsngal fkeytok fpi fay.
A.m.: The cup exists for water.

But maybe it only makes sense with unspoken context. It implies that someone created it for them:
Tute-o-l ng<am>op fì-tseng-it fpi ay-ioang (a kelku s<iv>i tsa-ru).
A.m.: Someone created this place for animals (who would dwell in it). (A zoo or nature preserve.)
(I'm not sure if tsa-ru belongs here. It makes more sense with it, I think.)

Tute-o-l ng<am>op fì-tsngal-it fpi fay (a sl<iv>oan tsa-nemfa).
A.m.: Someone created this cup for water (which would pour/go into it).



Maybe the examples I gave in my first post are just how we speak in English. I will assume it doesn't work for other languages. Whatever the case, I think `Eylan's answer is the best solution to my original sentence. And the others could be written a different way:

Ultxa l<ay>en maw txon'ong.
A.m.: The meeting will happen after dusk.

Utral-ìri, 'ur fkan ram.
A.m.: The tree looks like a mountain.
Lit.: "As for the tree, the appearance resembles a mountain.
(From the example under Middle Voice.)

Fì-puk-ìl nga' ay-u-it teri hona ay-falulukan-tsyìp.
A.m.: This book contains things about cute cats.

In sentences:

Ultxa a len txon'ong-maw ...
A.m.: The meeting which occurs after dusk ...

Utral a (ts-eyä?) 'ur fkan ram ...
A.m.: The tree whose appearance is like a mountain ...

Puk a nga' ay-u-it teri hona ay-falulukan-tsyìp ...
A.m.: The book which contains things about cute cats ...

[Tìtstewan]

But, if I ask you "For what use is this cup?", you would not answere "One puts water into cup".

Yet in English, this is a perfectly reasonable answer.

The lack of a word for 'for' is one of the biggest stumblingblocks I encounter with Naʼvi.

That's correct, (in English) it would make sense to say, "One puts water into cup", although it does sound a tad strange/formal.

I thought fpi+ serves the function of for? Or is there a subtle difference between what it really means and what I'm asking about? I see no difference.

I see I didn't express my thought correct. Of course, that it's would be the corect answere. But ok.

As for fpi, you can use it for every "for" (no pun intended ) if you can replace it with "for the sake of".
From your examples:
Tsenge fkeytok ay-ioang-fpi.
A.m.: The place exists for animals.
This place exist for the sake of animals.

Tsngal fkeytok fpi fay.
A.m.: The cup exists for water.
The cup exist for the sake of water.

Fì-puk-ìl nga' ay-u-it teri hona ay-falulukan-tsyìp. A.m.: This book contains things about cute cats.

I'm not sure if there is missing a.
Fìpukìl nga' ayuit a teri hona ayfalulukantsyìp.
This book contains things which (is) about cute cats.

Tute-o-l ng<am>op fì-tseng-it fpi ay-ioang (a kelku s<iv>i tsa-ru). A.m.: Someone created this place for animals (who would dwell in it). (A zoo or nature preserve.) (I'm not sure if tsa-ru belongs here. It makes more sense with it, I think.)

Hmm, good question.
If I think about kem si and if I want to say "don't do it", we don't say "*kem rä'ä si tsa-ru", we are saying "tsa-kem rä'ä si".
I think, "who would dwell in it" would be "a tsakelku sivi"

[Blue Elf]

I read this in Na'vi in a Nutshell, Section 9.2:

9.2 There is
There is is achieved by using lu at the start of a sentence

The only other example of this usage I found at 6.18.4.4 of Annis's grammar ref:

lu tìkin a ... there is a need to/for ...

But that could be an idiom for tìkin.

Yes, but note, that you took just part sentence from the example:
Nian: Lu ayutral mì na'rìng -> There are trees in the forest (or just Trees are in the forest). "Lu utral" is really not complete sentence

Horen: lu tìkin a X - there is a need to/for X. Again, "lu tìkin" alone, without "a X" part is not complete sentence. You can't trim part of sentence out of context, it loose meaning.

Utral-ìri, 'ur fkan na ram.

When fkan is followed be adjective (Fìnaerìri sur fkan oeru kalin), na is not used (adjective is not used with adposition). But when we use noun after fkan, adposition is needed.

Puk a nga' ay-u-it teri hona ay-falulukan-tsyìp

Here I'd would replace ayu by säomum, Na'vi tend to be quite specific (You can say Ngal poltxe peut?, but preferred way is to say Ngal poltxe paylì'ut? (see Naviteri)). Even in English I think is preferred way to say "Book contains information" instead "Book contains things".

Tute-o-l ng<am>op fì-tseng-it fpi ay-ioang (a kelku s<iv>i tsa-ru).

Dative with kelku si doesn't work, AFAIK.
We say "Oe kelku so mì Helutral", but not *"Oe kelku si Kelutralur". You can find this second example in one of Le'eylan's prezi lesson, but later I was told this example is not correct. So safe is"
Tute-o-l ng<am>op fì-tseng-it fpi ay-ioang a kelku s<iv>i tsatsenge (or fìtsenge, as it was used in first part of sentence).

I think, "who would dwell in it" would be "a tsakelku sivi"

Really no. Remember what Paul said about modifying si-verbs:

But you wouldn't modify nari in nari si or kelku in kelku si; those are more idiomatic and "frozen," where modifying the noun component wouldn't be plausible.

[Taronyu Leleioae]

As for fpi, you can use it for every "for" (no pun intended ) if you can replace it with "for the sake of".
From your examples:
Tsenge fkeytok ay-ioang-fpi.
A.m.: The place exists for animals.
This place exist for the sake of animals.

Tsngal fkeytok fpi fay.
A.m.: The cup exists for water.
The cup exist for the sake of water.

I'd amend this explanation.  You are missing a descriptive word.  I agree that, to us, logical thinking fills in the assumed (missing) word. 
But just wanting to add this for other readers. 

The place exists for [the benefit / safety / protection OF] animals.  Wild animals themselves cannot ask for the place.  Or one could insert an action [protecting, benefiting].

The same is for water.  Water is inanimate.  Wouldn't know it needs a cup.  But you can say, "The cup exists for [drinking (an action)] water."

[Tìtstewan]

I think, "who would dwell in it" would be "a tsakelku sivi" Really no. Remember what Paul said about modifying si-verbs: But you wouldn't modify nari in nari si or kelku in kelku si; those are more idiomatic and "frozen," where modifying the noun component wouldn't be plausible.

I totally forgot about it...

I'd amend this explanation.  You are missing a descriptive word.  I agree that, to us, logical thinking fills in the assumed (missing) word.  But just wanting to add this for other readers.  The place exists for [the benefit / safety / protection OF] animals.  Wild animals themselves cannot ask for the place.  Or one could insert an action [protecting, benefiting]. The same is for water.  Water is inanimate.  Wouldn't know it needs a cup.  But you can say, "The cup exists for [drinking (an action)] water."

I was going to keep it as easy as possible and used the one of the 'official' definition. But your idea of this explanation is, of course, great!

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Tsenge fkeytok ay-ioang-fpi.
A.m.: The place exists for animals.
This place exist for the sake of animals.

I'd amend this explanation.  You are missing a descriptive word.  I agree that, to us, logical thinking fills in the assumed (missing) word. 
But just wanting to add this for other readers. 

The place exists for [the benefit / safety / protection OF] animals.  Wild animals themselves cannot ask for the place.  Or one could insert an action [protecting, benefiting].

In this particular case, this reads just fine-- 'Place for the benefit (or sake) of animals. No other description is really needed for this to have its intended meaning, as this is exactly what a zoo is. (BTW, ma Kerame Ayyo'koti, if you haven't figured it out, I am a zookeeper on the weekends, so this thread is of special interest to me!) Of course, if you were trying to emphasize a particula benefit of a zoo, you add it to the sentence.