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

Started by Carborundum, October 23, 2010, 03:33:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Carborundum

Adverbs such as wrrpa and alìm can indeed be used with words other than verbs; they are used to modify any word that isn't a noun. Adding nì- to words that already are adverbs is never necessary, or even correct, so don't. ;)
Regarding *'eylanan and *'eylane, these are not valid. The suffixes -an and -e are not productive, so only Frommer gets to use them to create new words.
The patientive markers -ti/-it can be used without another word being marked as the agentive. NGati merakto is grammatical.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Tirea Aean

#1
yeah. wrrpa and alìm, being adverbs, modify the verb. they are already adverbs, so of course you dont need nì.

Oe kä wrrpa. I go outside.

Quote from: Ikranari on October 23, 2010, 03:21:30 PM

And while I was writing this topic I did get to think of something  ;D

'eylan is friend, so if you have a frind that is boy or girl, do you say 'eylanan (a frind that is boy) and 'eylane (frind that is girl)
Is this right? or am I totaly wrong?  ;D

And while I was writing this I did came to think on something else  ;D
The affix l/ìl can not be used if there is not a noun in the sentence that have it/ti, but can it/ti be used if not l/ì is used?
I mean, if not how will you say that you are being rided? ngati merakto?


:) Irayo nìtan  :)

OK so we know now that -e and -an ARE NOT productive. meaning that we dont call out the female or male version of something whenever we want. the words with -e and -an are already established. 'itan 'ite tsmukan, tsmuke. poan poe, tutan, tuté. there may be a few others, but those are it. Na'vi dont care about gender so saying 'eylane or 'eylanan doesnt really work, theres no need for it. theres actually not too much of a need for tutan tuté poan poe and such because tute or po is enough. especially when you know who you are talking about. if i said "my friend, Jessica" theres no need to call out the gender on the word friend, because clearly, Jessica is a girl, and we know that already. no need to say 'eylane. if i said my friend, John, same thing. no need for 'eylanan. hope that helps

actually, there are some times that there are l without t and t without l, but thats only because the missing one is IMPLIED to be there. there are MANY times you will see a t without a l, l without a t is quite rare, but i believe it happens, again because the -t word is so clear, it doesnt even have to be stated.

kempe si po?
pol yom (syuveti)

of course we know that if (s)he is eating, (s)he is eating food, so its not really necessary to include that there.

those who were also at the workshop, correct me if im wrong because we totally talked about this.

EDIT:

Quote from: Carborundum on October 23, 2010, 03:33:55 PM
Adverbs such as wrrpa and alìm can indeed be used with words other than verbs; they are used to modify any word that isn't a noun. Adding nì- to words that already are adverbs is never necessary, or even correct, so don't. ;)
Regarding *'eylanan and *'eylane, these are not valid. The suffixes -an and -e are not productive, so only Frommer gets to use them to create new words.
The patientive markers -ti/-it can be used without another word being marked as the agentive. NGati merakto is grammatical.

since when can we use adverbs with anything other than a verb?? how does that work?

Ngati merakto is grammatical because the word that would have -l is implied and dropped due to context. thats  the idea here. things known from context can and will be dropped from time to time.

Carborundum

Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 03:37:40 PM
Quote from: Carborundum on October 23, 2010, 03:33:55 PM
Adverbs such as wrrpa and alìm can indeed be used with words other than verbs; they are used to modify any word that isn't a noun. Adding nì- to words that already are adverbs is never necessary, or even correct, so don't. ;)
Regarding *'eylanan and *'eylane, these are not valid. The suffixes -an and -e are not productive, so only Frommer gets to use them to create new words.
The patientive markers -ti/-it can be used without another word being marked as the agentive. NGati merakto is grammatical.

since when can we use adverbs with anything other than a verb?? how does that work?
"Very much". In fact, I can't think of any way to use "very" with a verb.
Quote
Ngati merakto is grammatical because the word that would have -l is implied and dropped due to context. thats  the idea here. things known from context can and will be dropped from time to time.
Sure. Much like "riding you" would be grammatical, but nonsensical, if used by itself in English.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Tirea Aean

#3
Quote from: Carborundum on October 23, 2010, 03:49:48 PM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 03:37:40 PM
Quote from: Carborundum on October 23, 2010, 03:33:55 PM
Adverbs such as wrrpa and alìm can indeed be used with words other than verbs; they are used to modify any word that isn't a noun. Adding nì- to words that already are adverbs is never necessary, or even correct, so don't. ;)
Regarding *'eylanan and *'eylane, these are not valid. The suffixes -an and -e are not productive, so only Frommer gets to use them to create new words.
The patientive markers -ti/-it can be used without another word being marked as the agentive. NGati merakto is grammatical.

since when can we use adverbs with anything other than a verb?? how does that work?
"Very much". In fact, I can't think of any way to use "very" with a verb.

uhhh nìtxan doesnt always mean very, man... it is more difficult to directly translate than most people think, IMO. nìtxan itself can mean very much. and it is totally used on verbs...i cant remember ever seeing nìtxan ever modifying any adj or other adv...

ngari menari lor lu nìtxan.

the nitxan is talking about lu, not lor.

Quote from: Ikranari on October 23, 2010, 03:46:00 PM
Thanks soooooooo muche, that did vrely clear things up  ;D
And HURRAY! l CAN be used alone, I think I have wondered for this for a looong time, and I have kind of just been more and more confused, but You Tirea made a so easy explaning that eaven I understand  ;D
Thanks  ;D

And I kind of got a nother question  ;D
Do you us ri sometimes insted of l? like to say: I spin in the water: oeri kìm mì pay. beakause you can't use t on the water beacause the water is not geting spinned, but you wanna show that its you that spin, not the water. is it then right to use ri?  ;D

Again THANKS  ;D
EDIT (I edit too  ;D)
Quotesince when can we use adverbs with anything other than a verb?? how does that work?


I wonder of the same  ;D

about -ri: there are set times to use that. we dont have any super set in stone rules when to use that like we do for the other case markers.

we KNOW:

ngari txe'lan mawey livu
, and poeri uniltìrantokxit tarmok a krr lam stum nìayfo -- inalienable possessions, i.e body parts, use -ri in place of -ä is more idiomatic
tsari oe ngaru seiyi irayo -- the thing thanking for
tsari nawma sa'nok lrrtok sivi -- thing Eywa may smile about
'upxareri oe pamrel si -- the thing you write i.e a message, when using pamrel si. instead of -ur, which is wrong.
tsari tsap'alute si -- thing apologizing for
tsari kllfro' oe -- thing I am being responsible for
tìfyawìntxuri oeyä perey aynga nìwotx. --thing you wait for

those are structures we KNOW we use -ri with.

here are some that make sense to use -ri but (I anyway) cant really know when to use it or not:
lì'fyari leNa'vi oel 'efu ayngeyä tìyawnit.
txonìri alahe awngal yom hametsìt fu matsat ke tsranten...

so that sums up my knowledge of -ri. hope that helps.

to answer your question:

I spin in the water:

oe kìm mì fay
or
oe kìm paymì

since we have a preposition, it is clear that pay is not any kind of direct object and we know that the water is not spinning. it is clear that you are saying [in the water] [i spin]


here is a good question: is this word for spin, transitive? can you even use it to say "I spin the wheel" type of sentences?

Carborundum

Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 04:05:13 PM
uhhh nìtxan doesnt always mean very, man... it is more difficult to directly translate than most people think, IMO. nìtxan itself can mean very much. and it is totally used on verbs...i cant remember ever seeing nìtxan ever modifying any adj or other adv...

ngari menari lor lu nìtxan.

the nitxan is talking about lu, not lor.
Yes? I didn't say nìtxan.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Carborundum on October 23, 2010, 04:08:06 PM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 04:05:13 PM
uhhh nìtxan doesnt always mean very, man... it is more difficult to directly translate than most people think, IMO. nìtxan itself can mean very much. and it is totally used on verbs...i cant remember ever seeing nìtxan ever modifying any adj or other adv...

ngari menari lor lu nìtxan.

the nitxan is talking about lu, not lor.
Yes? I didn't say nìtxan.

what other adverb do we have that means very or much?

Carborundum

#6
Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 04:13:59 PM
what other adverb do we have that means very or much?
I'm sorry, I was being unclear; my example wasn't supposed to be about Na'vi in particular, but language in general. It was merely an example of an adverb modifying a non-verb word.

Edit: A Na'vi example of an adverb modifying something other than a verb:
Quote from: FrommerNìawnomum, fwa oel fìtìkangkemvit sngeykivä'i krrnolekx nìtxan
Here nìawnomum is applied to the entire following clause, rather than any specific verb.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Tirea Aean

#7
Quote from: Carborundum on October 23, 2010, 04:18:14 PM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 04:13:59 PM
what other adverb do we have that means very or much?
I'm sorry, I was being unclear; my example wasn't supposed to be about Na'vi in particular, but language in general. It was merely an example of an adverb modifying a non-verb word.

Edit: A Na'vi example of an adverb modifying something other than a verb:
Quote from: FrommerNìawnomum, fwa oel fìtìkangkemvit sngeykivä'i krrnolekx nìtxan
Here nìawnomum is applied to the entire following clause, rather than any specific verb.

we have two types of adv, one type ONLY modifies the main verb. the other type modifies the whole sentence. niawnomum is a sentence adverbial, not a manner adverbial. nitxan i would venture is a manner adverbial. nìhek is another sentence adverbial, where the manner adverbial version of that is nìfya'o a hek.

Carborundum

Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 04:34:49 PM
we have two types of adv, one type ONLY modifies the main verb. the other type modifies the whole sentence. niawnomum is a sentence adverbial, not a manner adverbial. nitxan i would venture is a manner adverbial. nìhek is another sentence adverbial, where the manner adverbial version of that is nìfya'o a hek.
Unless you have more information than me (which is not unthinkable), you can't say for sure that all Na'vi adverbs have to be one or the other. Only that all we have seen to date appear to behave so.

Regardless, my original point stands; adverbs can be used for non-verb things.
Good night.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Tirea Aean

#9
Quote from: Carborundum on October 23, 2010, 04:44:30 PM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 04:34:49 PM
we have two types of adv, one type ONLY modifies the main verb. the other type modifies the whole sentence. niawnomum is a sentence adverbial, not a manner adverbial. nitxan i would venture is a manner adverbial. nìhek is another sentence adverbial, where the manner adverbial version of that is nìfya'o a hek.
Unless you have more information than me (which is not unthinkable), you can't say for sure that all Na'vi adverbs have to be one or the other. Only that all we have seen to date appear to behave so.

Regardless, my original point stands; adverbs can be used for non-verb things.
Good night.

good point.

I agree:

who knows that they MUST BE either one or the other and cannot be both? but with current evidence, as you said, it is this way.

any adv that is not a manner adverbial can be used for non-verb things. This fact is open to future evidence that may refute its validity. but for now, it is true.
Txon lefpom. :3

Carborundum

#10
Hey, take a look at this:
Quote from: Frommer'Rrtamì tsranten nìtxan awngaru nìwotx
Nìwotx modifies awgnaru, and is thus neither a manner nor a sentence adverbial.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Carborundum on October 24, 2010, 09:43:17 AM
Hey, take a look at this:
Quote from: Frommer'Rrtamì tsranten nìtxan awngaru nìwotx
Nìwotx modifies awgnaru, and is thus neither a manner nor a sentence adverbial.

another one:

Quote from: Frommerayeylanur oeyä sì eylanur lì'fyayä leNa'vi nìwotx.

nìwotx is a weird one. there is not even a verb there. so youre right about this one. touché.

omängum fra'uti

I was going to give the nìwotx example as well.  I believe there's a line from Avatar where it is also used with "aynga nìwotx".

But I also wanted to point out that in "kä wrrpa" - I don't think wrrpa is an adverb there.  If it were, the meaning would seem more like "I go while I am outside".  Rather, it is a noun, as a shorthand of "oe kä ne wrrpa" - since for verbs like kä, za'u, etc when the destination follows the verb, you can omit the adposition ne.
Quote from: Paul Frommer[Digression: With verbs of motion, ne can be optionally omitted if the destination comes after the verb. So you can say Po zola'u fìtsengne or Po zola'u fìtseng. But *Po fìtseng zola'u is ungrammatical; it has to be Po fìtsengne (or ne fìtseng) zola'u.]

Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 03:37:40 PM
actually, there are some times that there are l without t and t without l, but thats only because the missing one is IMPLIED to be there. there are MANY times you will see a t without a l, l without a t is quite rare, but i believe it happens, again because the -t word is so clear, it doesnt even have to be stated.

kempe si po?
pol yom (syuveti)
I would also disagree with this example.  Unless food (Or a certain type) was being discussed (Which the context of the question doesn't make it seem like it was) I would argue that the antipassive "po yom" would be correct here if you aren't saying what is being eaten.

However there is a case where the -l/-ìl is used where there is no -t (Implied or stated) - the causative on transitive verbs used in an antipassive manner.
Oel poru yeykom
I made him eat
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Tirea Aean

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on October 24, 2010, 09:33:13 PM
I was going to give the nìwotx example as well.  I believe there's a line from Avatar where it is also used with "aynga nìwotx".

But I also wanted to point out that in "kä wrrpa" - I don't think wrrpa is an adverb there.  If it were, the meaning would seem more like "I go while I am outside".  Rather, it is a noun, as a shorthand of "oe kä ne wrrpa" - since for verbs like kä, za'u, etc when the destination follows the verb, you can omit the adposition ne.
Quote from: Paul Frommer[Digression: With verbs of motion, ne can be optionally omitted if the destination comes after the verb. So you can say Po zola'u fìtsengne or Po zola'u fìtseng. But *Po fìtseng zola'u is ungrammatical; it has to be Po fìtsengne (or ne fìtseng) zola'u.]

Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 23, 2010, 03:37:40 PM
actually, there are some times that there are l without t and t without l, but thats only because the missing one is IMPLIED to be there. there are MANY times you will see a t without a l, l without a t is quite rare, but i believe it happens, again because the -t word is so clear, it doesnt even have to be stated.

kempe si po?
pol yom (syuveti)
I would also disagree with this example.  Unless food (Or a certain type) was being discussed (Which the context of the question doesn't make it seem like it was) I would argue that the antipassive "po yom" would be correct here if you aren't saying what is being eaten.

However there is a case where the -l/-ìl is used where there is no -t (Implied or stated) - the causative on transitive verbs used in an antipassive manner.
Oel poru yeykom
I made him eat

yeah bad example... good call. it was only matter on time for you to settle this one hrh I mean i know that l can exist in a sentence without t and vice versa, i just failed at giving an example...  :(

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Ikranari on October 29, 2010, 09:33:53 AM
Hey, I did wonder, if you say, like: I am outside the house, oe lu wrrpa kelku? How do you do that? I mean beacause coulden't that mean: house is outside me?

as long as wrrpa doesnt come before or attach to the end of oe, it means i am outside the house.

Oe lu wrrpa kelku. I am outside the house. (literal, word by word)
oe lu kelkuwrrpa. same thing.
kelkuwrrpa oe lu. same thing. but if you were speaking, this might sound like kelku wrrpa oe lu, which means the opposite.

oewrrpa lu kelku the house is outside me
kelku lu wrrpa oe. same thing.

make sense? the idea im focusing in on here is the nature of the adp, a word like outside, inside, under, over... the meaning of it is associated to the word it is attached to, or the word that comes after it.... if that makes any sense.

Carborundum

Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 29, 2010, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: Ikranari on October 29, 2010, 09:33:53 AM
Hey, I did wonder, if you say, like: I am outside the house, oe lu wrrpa kelku? How do you do that? I mean beacause coulden't that mean: house is outside me?

as long as wrrpa doesnt come before or attach to the end of oe, it means i am outside the house.

Oe lu wrrpa kelku. I am outside the house. (literal, word by word)
oe lu kelkuwrrpa. same thing.
kelkuwrrpa oe lu. same thing. but if you were speaking, this might sound like kelku wrrpa oe lu, which means the opposite.

oewrrpa lu kelku the house is outside me
kelku lu wrrpa oe. same thing.

make sense? the idea im focusing in on here is the nature of the adp, a word like outside, inside, under, over... the meaning of it is associated to the word it is attached to, or the word that comes after it.... if that makes any sense.
Wrrpa is not an adposition though. ;D
Oe lu wrrpa kelku could theoretically be thought to mean "the house is outside of me". However, there is no risk of anyone interpreting it like that.
We learn from our mistakes only if we are made aware of them.
If I make a mistake, please bring it to my attention for karma.

omängum fra'uti

You could say something like....

Kelkuri oe lu wrrpa
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!

Tirea Aean

Quote from: Carborundum on October 29, 2010, 11:53:09 AM
Quote from: Tirea Aean on October 29, 2010, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: Ikranari on October 29, 2010, 09:33:53 AM
Hey, I did wonder, if you say, like: I am outside the house, oe lu wrrpa kelku? How do you do that? I mean beacause coulden't that mean: house is outside me?

as long as wrrpa doesnt come before or attach to the end of oe, it means i am outside the house.

Oe lu wrrpa kelku. I am outside the house. (literal, word by word)
oe lu kelkuwrrpa. same thing.
kelkuwrrpa oe lu. same thing. but if you were speaking, this might sound like kelku wrrpa oe lu, which means the opposite.

oewrrpa lu kelku the house is outside me
kelku lu wrrpa oe. same thing.

make sense? the idea im focusing in on here is the nature of the adp, a word like outside, inside, under, over... the meaning of it is associated to the word it is attached to, or the word that comes after it.... if that makes any sense.
Wrrpa is not an adposition though. ;D
Oe lu wrrpa kelku could theoretically be thought to mean "the house is outside of me". However, there is no risk of anyone interpreting it like that.

FEYL.....

oe should probably start using the dictionary again... ('epìkx keytsyokx)

Quote from: omängum fra'uti on October 29, 2010, 12:00:52 PM
You could say something like....

Kelkuri oe lu wrrpa

that could work

Muzer

Has everyone forgotten this?

In Na'vi, lu isn't used for being somewhere - tok is used for that.


So it would probably be:

Oel tok wrrpa kelkuti

or

Kelkuri oel tok wrrpa


...or whatever is decided is best.
[21:42:56] <@Muzer> Apple products used to be good, if expensive
[21:42:59] <@Muzer> now they are just expensive

omängum fra'uti

Quote from: Muzer on October 29, 2010, 06:16:24 PM
Has everyone forgotten this?

In Na'vi, lu isn't used for being somewhere - tok is used for that.


So it would probably be:

Oel tok wrrpa kelkuti

or

Kelkuri oel tok wrrpa


...or whatever is decided is best.
Alas, neither would be correct.

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.
Ftxey lu nga tokx ftxey lu nga tirea? Lu oe tìkeftxo.
Listen to my Na'vi Lessons podcast!