Re: Ok, I got a problem (again) Positions ;P

[Muzer]

Very good point - so the answer basically is that we would need an adposition meaning outside.

[omängum fra'uti]

Why would we need an adposition for that?  Not every language expresses thoughts identically.  For example English uses a preposition to express something you are thankful for, while Na'vi uses the topic.  Or English uses a verb to express possession while Na'vi uses the dative.

[’eylan ’angtsìkä]

Tok is used when you are at a location, but for other cases it doesn't work.  So you can say "I'm at a tree" (oel utralit tok) but not "I'm below a tree" with it (Oe lu äo utral).  In this case as you are not "at" home but outside it, tok doesn't give the right meaning.  Rather, that would mean "I am at home outside" - which would only be correct if you live outside.

I don't think I understand this.  Why is below the tree not a location?  Oel tok tsatsengit alu äo utral.

[omängum fra'uti]

If you wanted to say it like that you could (Though when you're just giving an adposition modifier for a noun, you can just shorten it to a rather than alu) but it would be a bit long winded.  Remember, there are often many ways to say the same thing in languages, though often for common things to say (Such as X is ADP Y) there would probably be a common way for it to be said, and varying from that would typically be calling attention to something about it.

However, that would be "I am at a place which is under a tree" - not exactly that close of a translation to "I am under a tree", even if the meaning is the same.  My point was for the more literal translation of "I am under a tree", tok wouldn't work.

[Muzer]

Yes, but neither would any other verb we know of.

[omängum fra'uti]

Sure there is, lu.

Oe lu äo utral.

Right now that is the only way to express that concisely.  There is an open question of how using adpositions besides mì/ro with lu fits in with tok, but the last we've heard on it is that is how to say it.  It is still an unanswered question, but until it does get answered, that is what we have.

[Muzer]

But I thought lu wasn't to be used for when you are talking about being located somewhere?

[Muzer]

But anyway, we can't say "I am outside the house" if I'm understanding this correctly at the moment, as wrrpa is not an adposition. Unless "oel tok tsenget a lu wrrpa kelku" would work.



But IMO, saying something like "Oe lu äo utral" would be as silly as saying "I equal under the tree" in English. That's just if I'm understanding this correctly (which I don't see why I wouldn't be).

[omängum fra'uti]

When you are describing someone as at/in some place (At home, in the forest, etc) you use tok.  But if you aren't actually at the place, say you're under it or behind it, tok doesn't work directly.  You could use tok for "I am at a place which is under a tree" Oel tok tsenget a äo utral - but that is a bit long winded.  The only other option is to use lu.  Oe lu äu utral.  The last word from Frommer was that he was undecided on exactly how the difference in treatment of mì vs. other adpositions would be resolved with regard to usage with lu, but he has never specifically said you can't use lu with other locative adpositions.

And as I said earlier, for "I am outside the house", Kelkuri oe lu wrrap should work just fine.