Push here to open??

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I was looking this evening at a portable TV lighting fixture someone had given to me to have its lamp replaced. It had a place on the outer case that essentially said 'push here to open'. As the person who had given it to me has shown some interest in Na`vi, I did a quick translation into Na`vi of those instructions for him (first example below). I later thought this over, and determined that this is a fascinating little sentence that doesn't exactly follow traditional sentence construction rules. So, I came up with a couple of possible translations of 'push here to open'.

kä`ärìp fitseng piak si
Something about that sentence doesn't seem right. It is all verbs or adverbs.

kä`ärìp fitseng fte piak livu
This seems better but still not right. Piak is an adjective in this case, and almost needs to be a noun.

Perhaps, I am trying to be too literal, or maybe attempting to translate an idiom (again!).

Your thoughts?

[omängum fra'uti]

The second is closer, but why lu rather than si?

The wording itself is maybe mildly idiomatic, but only because what you are opening is implied there.  So maybe name it literally.

Kä'ivärìp fìtseng fte fì'u piak sivi
Push here so that this open

[Kì'eyawn]

Ma omängum, shouldn't that be fte fì'uru piak sivi?

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Ma omängum, shouldn't that be fte fì'uru piak sivi?

Omängum: I thought about using piak si, but that makes 'open' a verb. This is more like a state, and closer to a noun, so I chose the adjective form. Is this perhaps an example of a 'functional stative verb', and why si construction verbs do not act like normal verbs? In any case, I like what fi`u does here, and I am still having problems (perhaps my biggest problem) applying all the 'that' words that Na`vi has.

Tigermind: I am not sure why making fi`u dative case helps here. It would make the translation something like:  'Push here so that this to itself open makes'

[Carborundum]

Also, since kä'ärìp is transitive, wouldn't tseng take the accusative?

[omängum fra'uti]

I used piak si because it is an action for which pushing is the desired result.  It is saying to push so that it opens.

Also, I used fìtseng in a more adverbial sense, describing a location for the action rather than the object to be pushed.

[Kì'eyawn]

Tigermind: I am not sure why making fi`u dative case helps here. It would make the translation something like:  'Push here so that this to itself open makes'

We know piak si is the verb "to open;" although the si makes the verb behave intransitively, i was under the impression the verb is used in the sense of "to open something."  So the translation would be "push here to make this thing open."  But i might be misunderstanding how piak si and tstu si are used.  Maybe i'd better go ask on the dictionary thread...

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I used piak si because it is an action for which pushing is the desired result.  It is saying to push so that it opens.

Also, I used fìtseng in a more adverbial sense, describing a location for the action rather than the object to be pushed.

So a verb can be both an action or a result?

[omängum fra'uti]

A resulting action...  It's the "fte" which is declaring the opening as a result of pushing.

Consider a few canon sources of fte...

Sänume sivi poru fte tsivun pivlltxe sì tivìran nìayoeng
Here, teaching him is the action, and him being able to speak and walk like us is the result.

Nari si ayoe fteke nìhawng livok
Here, watching out is the action, and not getting too close is the result

[Taronyu]

Why sänume sivi? instead of nume sivi?

[Kä'eng]

It would be kind of weird to use si with a word that's already a verb. (although, we do have tì'awm and tì'eylan, turning a noun into a noun...)

[omängum fra'uti]

Sänume isn't a verb, it's a noun, and sänume si does not mean the same thing as nume.  There's actually two cases of nominalized verbs + si used in Avatar.  Aside from sänume si, there is also tìhawnu sivi.  I can not answer why that was used instead of kar and hawnu respectively.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Sänume isn't a verb, it's a noun, and sänume si does not mean the same thing as nume.  There's actually two cases of nominalized verbs + si used in Avatar.  Aside from sänume si, there is also tìhawnu sivi.  I can not answer why that was used instead of kar and hawnu respectively.

Omängum, the more I look at your example, and read the resulting comments, the more I think it is just about optimal. I also see how you are using a verb as both an action and an actionable result.

If I am reading things right, sänume si would mean something like 'make an epistle', or 'become an epistle'. Nume means 'teach', which does not have the creative aspect of sänume si. Perhaps, this is why sänume has the instrumental noun prefix attached to it-- a (written or documented)teaching, book or epistle is a tool or instrument of sorts.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Sänume isn't a verb, it's a noun, and sänume si does not mean the same thing as nume.  There's actually two cases of nominalized verbs + si used in Avatar.  Aside from sänume si, there is also tìhawnu sivi.  I can not answer why that was used instead of kar and hawnu respectively.

They seem to me almost reminiscent of passive forms.

sänume si clearly emphasises that learning part of the teaching to me, but would be using the same person as the subject as kar; likewise, tìhawnu sivi emphasises the sheltered as opposed to the protection (also the line its entirety emphasises this even more, the subject is dropped completely whilst the object remains although this could be a result of it being an imperative instead)

It's clear that this is certainly not productive (for one thing the two use different nominaliser affixes, it wouldn't be a surprise were there forms derived with -tu and -yu as well) but I don't think it would be entirely wrong to use these in a similar manner to a passive form (although I'd be extraordinarily surprised (and slightly disappointed) if there wasn't more to it than that).

Back on topic though, I've always thought of most of the si verbs as not only syntactically intransitive, but also semantically so I'd probably use <eyk> and put fì'u in the accusative to say "kä'(iv)ärìp fìtseng fte fì'ut piak seykivi" (the <iv> is in parentheses because it is not required).

[omängum fra'uti]

The reason I went si instead of seyki is because in most cases when you "push here", it isn't followed up by you opening something, it is followed up by that something opening on its own.  While I think either would work here, "Push here to open" is a very terse statement, so I went with the terseness.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

You make a good  point.

I was more thinking of it as using "a fì'ul" I think instead of the fte I actually used. I think that would work, but yours certainly captures the terseness much better.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Back on topic though, I've always thought of most of the si verbs as not only syntactically intransitive, but also semantically so I'd probably use <eyk> and put fì'u in the accusative to say "kä'(iv)ärìp fìtseng fte fì'ut piak seykivi" (the <iv> is in parentheses because it is not required).

I take it you used fi`ut here, as opposed to futa because piak seykivi is essentially one word and does not need the adjectival attribuitive marker a? I like this version a lot, the <eyk> does a lot to convey the right meaning.

[omängum fra'uti]

Futa is used when there is a new subordinate clause.  Here fì'u is just being used as literally "this thing", there is no need to attribute anything to it.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Futa is used when there is a new subordinate clause.  Here fì'u is just being used as literally "this thing", there is no need to attribute anything to it.

Maybe then, I am not understanding what attribution is. Lets see if this makes sense.

In the example in question, fiu`t means 'this thing', so fiu`t piak seykivi so these (essentially) two words mean 'this thing open make', and is a verb. If you used a with words following, those words taken together effectively become an adjective. However, a single word can also follow a and still be rendered an adjective (right?). Since an adjective is not needed here, there is no need for a whether what follows is a word or a clause?

Is there a non-adjectival clause connector, or is the fiu`t family it?

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Futa is used when there is a new subordinate clause.  Here fì'u is just being used as literally "this thing", there is no need to attribute anything to it.

Maybe then, I am not understanding what attribution is. Lets see if this makes sense.

In the example in question, fiu`t means 'this thing', so fiu`t piak seykivi so these (essentially) two words mean 'this thing open make', and is a verb. If you used a with words following, those words taken together effectively become an adjective. However, a single word can also follow a and still be rendered an adjective (right?). Since an adjective is not needed here, there is no need for a whether what follows is a word or a clause?

Is there a non-adjectival clause connector, or is the fiu`t family it?

fiu`t a piak seykivi/futa piak seykivi would mean "this thing that opens/is oppened", fiu`t piak seykivi would mean "opens this thing". It all comes down to which clause the noun is in. In the sentence I gave, the noun is an argument of the verb, in the relative clause version, the verb is the argument of the noun which in turn must be the argument of another verb due to its case.