Pronouns

[Seze Mune]

Imho, it's nice to have these topics occasionally floated to the surface as a refresher, OR as a gold ingot of information which might attract other newbies' attention.

So, at the risk of ticking off some of the mods, I say, "Lìng tsa'ut var!"

Well, it really is not correct, ngaytxoa ma Seze Mune. Try "Var leykivìng tsat" (lit: continue to cause it to hover)

Ma Blue Elf, I was depending on you to correct me.  Irayo seiyi for that!  Tafral tìng oel ngaru tìmeyamit.  

Oh, and that brings us back to pronouns because I need to understand nìwotx the nuances of tsat versus futa, etc. Is there a thread for that?  I didn't find one.  

Ma Seze Mune, what got me my current tenuous grasp on those pronouns was understanding that futa is a contraction derived from fìʼu-t a, "this thing (patientive) that...." If you've studied Japanese, you learned how you can turn an entire sentence into a noun with no and koto, right? It took me a while to pick up that Naʼvi does the same thing, but backwards, and it also builds the case inflection into the fu- series of pronouns. The closest English word to the series is "that", but it means "that" in the sense of "I know that this isn't intuitive to an English speaker" (futa) or "That someone tried to teach his son Klingon is interesting but scary." (fwa or furia)

Wandering further off topic, if you're a native speaker of English the -eyk- infix will be difficult. Most languages have verbs with fixed "transitivity"; that is, a verb must have only a subject, or it must have a subject and an object, or it must have a subject and two objects. English is unusual in allowing many verbs to either take only a subject (intransitive), or take a subject and an object (transitive). A good example is "I walk" versus "I walk the dog". The second could be expressed as "I cause the dog to walk", which is why this form is called "causative". In Naʼvi, you would express this by using -eyk-. Oe tìran, but oe-l t<eyk>ìran nantang-it. A rough rule of thumb is that (except for si-verbs) if you see a verb marked as intransitive in the dictionary but you really want to use a word marked with -(i)t(i) with it, you should make the verb causative with -eyk-.

As I've mentioned before, I have an analytical mind and this sort of analysis helps me greatly; please ignore it if it doesn't help you.

While I am a native English speaker, I am also familiar with (not necessarily fluent in) several other languages including Old English.  The -eyk- infix seems intuitive to me, as does the -äp- infix.  Not that I will always use them correctly, but they don't confuse me per se.

Thank you for showcasing the subjects, because I do find that helpful. 

[Seze Mune]

Ma Seze Mune, what got me my current tenuous grasp on those pronouns was understanding that futa is a contraction derived from fìʼu-t a, "this thing (patientive) that...." If you've studied Japanese, you learned how you can turn an entire sentence into a noun with no and koto, right? It took me a while to pick up that Naʼvi does the same thing, but backwards, and it also builds the case inflection into the fu- series of pronouns. The closest English word to the series is "that", but it means "that" in the sense of "I know that this isn't intuitive to an English speaker" (futa) or "That someone tried to teach his son Klingon is interesting but scary." (fwa or furia)

To be exact: Fwa/futa/furia are all based on fì'u - this (thing) + added case ending according position in sentence. But rough meaning is "that", lit. "this thing which is ..." These words refer to something near.
To express something distant, you use words based on tsa'u - that (thing) with tsawa/tsata/tsaria derivations, lit. "that thing which is..."

Irayo seiyi ma Blue Elf. 

I am laughing at myself now because while I was trying to respond nìNa'vi, I ran into my conundrum.  I wanted to say 'THIS is exactly what I need to know!'  So I started with 'Fì'u lu...' and ran into a wall.  'THIS is that (thing) which I need to know' is probably the construction I should use, so I might say Fì'u tsa'u lu, a oe kin omum. Already I know both clauses are wrong. At a minimum, kin omum is probably not a legitimate construction - two verbs together.  So I must change the original construction to...maybe.... Fì'u lu tìomum, a kin oe. Since the clause a kin oe modifies fì'u, then shouldn't I make that fì'ut by adding the patientive ending -t? Or should it be furia because it should be topical with a subordinator?

Or am I just over-thinking this?   

[Yawne Zize’ite]

To be exact: Fwa/futa/furia are all based on fì'u - this (thing) + added case ending according position in sentence. But rough meaning is "that", lit. "this thing which is ..." These words refer to something near.
To express something distant, you use words based on tsa'u - that (thing) with tsawa/tsata/tsaria derivations, lit. "that thing which is..."

Irayo seiyi ma Blue Elf. 

I am laughing at myself now because while I was trying to respond nìNa'vi, I ran into my conundrum.  I wanted to say 'THIS is exactly what I need to know!'  So I started with 'Fì'u lu...' and ran into a wall.  'THIS is that (thing) which I need to know' is probably the construction I should use, so I might say Fì'u tsa'u lu, a oe kin omum. Already I know both clauses are wrong. At a minimum, kin omum is probably not a legitimate construction - two verbs together.  So I must change the original construction to...maybe.... Fì'u lu tìomum, a kin oe. Since the clause a kin oe modifies fì'u, then shouldn't I make that fì'ut by adding the patientive ending -t? Or should it be furia because it should be topical with a subordinator?

Or am I just over-thinking this?   

You're on the right track, but this is a surprisingly complicated construction.
Na'vi, like Old English, uses the nominative subjective on both sides of a lu-construction. So no patientive.
You're right that kin omum doesn't work. I thought kin would be modal, but it's not and it does take an object.
Naʼvi uses a "gap" to form relative clauses; that is, in the relative clause, if the word in the main sentence that the clause modifies is a subject, agent, or direct object in the relative clause, the word is left out entirely and the listener fills it in by finding the "gap" in the relative clause. Among human languages, this is by far the most common strategy, but it's uncommon in Europe.
I read "a kin oe" as modifying "tìomum". It's the knowledge which you need, derived from the full sentence "kin oel tìomumit". This becomes "tìomum a kin oel tsat", but you don't need the "tsat" since any reasonable listener can figure out that the missing patient must be "tìomum".

I would translate your sentence as Fìʼuri lu tsatìomum a kin oel. The topical is optional (I may overuse it because I'm familiar with it from Japanese, which is extremely fond of topicals) and so is the tsa- on tsatìomum. A literal translation of my version is "As for this, it is that knowledge which I need."

I suspect I've made some error myself. Help, ma Blue Elf? 

[wm.annis]

I wanted to say 'THIS is exactly what I need to know!'  So I started with 'Fì'u lu...' and ran into a wall. 

We have a strong pointer in the right direction from Paul's blog post One more for 2011.  In this he discusses contrastive demonstratives, "this is good, that is bad."  I'm suggesting we can use that construction, but simply leave the second of the contrasted items implied.  So,

  Lu oeru tìkin a omum fì'uti alu fìtxele.

So, first, we have the "need to" idiom with lu DAT tìkin a CLAUSE.  Then, I put fì'u alu fìtxele, this matter, at the end of the clause, since Paul tells us that's where the "punch" is.

What we don't really have yet for Na'vi are idioms and patterns of use to represent realizations or sudden changes in state.

[Seze Mune]

Fìʼuri lu tsatìomum a kin oel.

Since kin is vtr wouldn't we need to make it tsatìomumit, or would we have to mark the topical fì'uri with the patientive?

[Seze Mune]

I wanted to say 'THIS is exactly what I need to know!'  So I started with 'Fì'u lu...' and ran into a wall. 

We have a strong pointer in the right direction from Paul's blog post One more for 2011.  In this he discusses contrastive demonstratives, "this is good, that is bad."  I'm suggesting we can use that construction, but simply leave the second of the contrasted items implied.  So,

  Lu oeru tìkin a omum fì'uti alu fìtxele.

So, first, we have the "need to" idiom with lu DAT tìkin a CLAUSE.  Then, I put fì'u alu fìtxele, this matter, at the end of the clause, since Paul tells us that's where the "punch" is.

What we don't really have yet for Na'vi are idioms and patterns of use to represent realizations or sudden changes in state.

Ahhh, so....my statement would be complete just by saying Lu oeru tìkin a omum fì'uti given the context, srak? Wou, that's elegant!  Fìsänumevit yawne lu oer.

Irayo nìtxan ma wm. annis.  I would have said 'Thank you for that', but there again I'm not sure how to use 'that' in that case. So perhaps I could say Fìtìomumìrit oel irayo si ngaru. (Even though I know this is a cop-out, ngaytxoa)

[wm.annis]

Irayo nìtxan ma wm. annis.  I would have said 'Thank you for that', but there again I'm not sure how to use 'that' in that case. So perhaps I could say Fìtìomumìrit oel irayo si ngaru.

With irayo si put the thing you're thanking someone for in the topical at the start of the sentence, tìoeyktìngìri irayo si thanks for the explanation.

You should never see the patientive case (-t/-ti/-it) in the same clause as a si-verb, since all si-verbs are intransitive in Na'vi, regardless of their English translations.

[Blue Elf]

Fìʼuri lu tsatìomum a kin oel.

Since kin is vtr wouldn't we need to make it tsatìomumit, or would we have to mark the topical fì'uri with the patientive?

No, we wouldn't. This sentence is not fully correct, let's analyze:
Fìʼuri lu tsatìomum a kin oel.
As you see "tsatìomum" is not part of green subordinate clause, therefore it can't take patientive; green clause modifies "tsatìomum".
Red main clause uses "lu" - and as it is intransitive, "tsatìomum" has no case ending - but subject can't be in topical. Correct solution was presented by wm.annis already. But maybe we can use also your sentence with some modification:

Tìomum a oel kin lu fì'u. => Knowledge I need is this.
I omitted Tsa-, as usage of tsa- and fì- in the same clause while referring to the same thing looks strange

[Seze Mune]

Tìoeyktìngìri irayo si ngaru, ma Blue Elf.  Thusly have I successfully avoided all use of pronouns.   

[Yawne Zize’ite]

Tìoeyktìngìri irayo si ngaru nìteng, ma Blue Elf. I did not know there was any rule against the topical marking the subject.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Wouldn't the subject be the obvious thing to mark with the topical in most sentences that need it? Or is this more a case where there should not be a topical in a sentence with an intransitive verb?

[Blue Elf]

Tìoeyktìngìri irayo si ngaru nìteng, ma Blue Elf. I did not know there was any rule against the topical marking the subject.

Topical doesn't mark subject, nari si! small example:
Tìoeyktìngìri oe irayo si ngar.

As you see, red part is complete clause with subject (oe), verb (irayo si) and subject (indirect here as verb is vin - ngar). So topical doesn't mark subject, but something different; literary:
As for explanation, I thank to you
Better:
I thank to you for the explanation
So what is marked as topical is in fact noun connected to clause with preposition

[Tanri]

Kaltxì ma eylan!
I apologise for bumping this thread, but which one can serve better speaking about pronouns

We know that demonstrative pronouns are created from regular nouns using prefixes fì-, tsa-, fay+, tsay+, according to Horen 3.3.7.
For example fìmehilvan - these two rivers.

But for some special kind of pronouns, I'll call them independent demonstrative pronouns, the prefixes fi- and tsa- are considered to be a non-detachable parts of the pronoun itself.
These pronouns are the third person pronouns fìpo, tsapo, fì'u, tsa'u.
So, because they are considered as one single word, not as a combination of prefix+something, the plural forms of these are formed this way: ayfìpo, (ay)sapo, ayfì'u, (ay)sa'u.

I had spend some time researching available documents about this matter, but unfortunately I did not get any response to my question:
Is this plural-forming mechanism applicable only for third person pronouns I mentioned above, or it can be extended to all demonstrative pronouns as seen in the table Horen 3.4 at page 16 (tsatu, fìkem, tsakem)??

[Ftiafpi]

Kaltxì ma eylan!
I apologise for bumping this thread, but which one can serve better speaking about pronouns

We know that demonstrative pronouns are created from regular nouns using prefixes fì-, tsa-, fay+, tsay+, according to Horen 3.3.7.
For example fìmehilvan - these two rivers.

But for some special kind of pronouns, I'll call them independent demonstrative pronouns, the prefixes fi- and tsa- are considered to be a non-detachable parts of the pronoun itself.
These pronouns are the third person pronouns fìpo, tsapo, fì'u, tsa'u.
So, because they are considered as one single word, not as a combination of prefix+something, the plural forms of these are formed this way: ayfìpo, (ay)sapo, ayfì'u, (ay)sa'u.

I had spend some time researching available documents about this matter, but unfortunately I did not get any response to my question:
Is this plural-forming mechanism applicable only for third person pronouns I mentioned above, or it can be extended to all demonstrative pronouns as seen in the table Horen 3.4 at page 16 (tsatu, fìkem, tsakem)??

To answer your question, as far as I know; yes.

The ay+, pxe+, and me+ prefixes are productive according to Dr. Frommer. Also, it's my understanding that you can order the prefixes as you please but lenition occurs which changes the prefix.

Fì- added to 'u = fì'u
Fì- added to ayu = fayu (or can possibly be fìayu)
Ay+ added to fì'u = ayfì'u

I see nothing that prevents this from being expanded for all other prefixes.

One thing that I believe you have wrong though is saying the prefixes are inseparable from the pronoun. 'u is fine on it's own as is po.

Does this make sense?

[Kemaweyan]

Fì- added to ayu = fayu (or can possibly be fìayu)

It is wrong. Only possible way is ayfì'u.

When I asked for clarification about the pronouns,

Right. With the pronouns, the order of elements is ay+tsa+'u rather than the expected tsa+ay+'u, etc.

Link

[Ftiafpi]

Fì- added to ayu = fayu (or can possibly be fìayu)

It is wrong. Only possible way is ayfì'u.

When I asked for clarification about the pronouns,

Right. With the pronouns, the order of elements is ay+tsa+'u rather than the expected tsa+ay+'u, etc.

Link

Ah, that's right. I had forgotten that pronouns had a specific order. Thank you for correcting me.

[Tanri]

Irayo ma Ftiafpi sì Kemaweyan

To clarify my question, until this days i thought that not only po and 'u based pronouns, but all those from Horen 3.3.7 table handle plural specially (*ayfìkem for example).
But as I see, this wasn't confirmed, so now I believe that demonstrative plurals of po and 'u are the only exceptions from the sequence fì/tsa->number->root.

[Plumps]

To clarify my question, until this days i thought that not only po and 'u based pronouns, but all those from Horen 3.3.7 table handle plural specially (*ayfìkem for example).

We have the example tsayhem from the Good Morning America sample

[Kemaweyan]

Kem is a noun

[Plumps]

But in connection with fì- or tsa- it behaves like a pronoun, i.e. 'it' (this/that action)

I think that is what Tanri was aiming at.