Simple phrase

[Ftxavang Pamtseotu]

Would this be accurate for asking, "You understand the Na'vi language?" and/or "You know how to speak Na'vi?"

Nga tslam plltxe nìNa'vi?

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Would this be accurate for asking, "You understand the Na'vi language?" and/or "You know how to speak Na'vi?"

Nga tslam plltxe nìNa'vi?

Very good try! Just one thing wrong I can see. Since this is essentially a yes/no question, you need a srak to indicate that it is a simple question.

[Ikran Ahiyìk]

Hmm... now the sentence have two verbs...

You need to change the "plltxe nìNa'vi" to a noun,
and as 'Eylan Ayfalulukanä said every yes/no question need a marker srak.
Also, tslam is a transitive word, so the subject and object need to take agentive and patientive.

Ngal tslam futa plltxe nìNa'vi srak?
Do you understand this thing which is speaking as a Na'vi?

Note: futa = fì-'u-t a


But we have another way to express it.

Nga tsun pivlltxe nìNa'vi srak?
Can you speak Na'vi?

Note: Tsun is a modal verb means "can", the other corresponding verb need to take subjunctive mood infix «iv».

[Ftxavang Pamtseotu]

Annnnnd I see that there is some terminology Im not following here... So that means I need to read the linguistics terminology.pdf... The apparent use of srak is obvious, however I don't follow the use/purpose of futa. You wrote:

Ngal tslam futa plltxe nìNa'vi srak?
Which I translate to mean... You understand this spoken Na'vi? Or something like that... Simply because the Na'vi to English dictionary translates futa as meaning this.

And since I am American, and Im trying to learn the Na'vi style of phrasing, I find phrasing the question as Ngal tslam lì'fya Na'vi srak? as rather English in presentation. And maybe this is the whole English thing here... Why is it inappropriate to ask if they understand the Na'vi language, verses asking if they understand the speaking of Na'vi? Just simple English phrasing versus Na'vi phrasing?

Also I interpret
Nga tsun pivlltxe nìNa'vi srak?
You can roughly speak/understand Na'vi?  

Which makes quite a bit of sense to me... However, what doesn't make sense to me is why the infix <iv> is required.

Though while I think Im grasping a bit of a better concept as to proper uses of <iv>, why do we use just <iv> instead of <irv>, since it seems to be a the tense of this question is present. Since I am asking this person if the understand Na'vi at this current moment that I am speaking to them in Na'vi?

So would, Nga tsun pirvlltxe níNa'vi srak?, be completely wrong?



 

[omängum fra'uti]

You ask some good questions.

Though I would interpret "Ngal tslam futa plltxe nìNa'vi srak?" as "Do you understand that you speak Na'vi?"

With "futa" is it something like "This thing which is..."  So that sentence is "You understand this thing, which is (you) speak Na'vi yes/no?"  Or for simpler English, often you can just translate it as "that" like I did above.

You could certainly say "Ngal tslam lì'fyati leNa'vi srak?" for "Do you understand the Na'vi language?"  Just like in English you could ask someone "Do you understand the X language?" - but most people wouldn't say it like that, they would just say in English, "Do you speak X?"  So I wouldn't call it inappropriate, or necessarily English phrasing, just not a common way to ask it.  The more common would of course be "Nga tsun pivlltxe nìNa'vi srak?" or perhaps even just "Nga plltxe nìNa'vi srak?"

The infix <iv> is required when you use another verb along with tsun, zene, zenke, new, or kan (And I may be forgetting one or two there).  It is always just <iv>, no tense or aspect.

But on top of that, something hard for English speakers to wrap their head around is exactly what <er> means.  It is not, as you suggest, present tense.  It actually has nothing to do with tense at all; it is just that the best English translation for a verb with just <er> in it is usually the present progressive tense, but that is English not Na'vi.  I would recommend reading William's excellent thread on tense and aspect to better understand.  It is difficult to explain in terms of a language that does not distinguish tense and aspect very well (English).

[Muzer]

<iv> is a very versatile infix, as it has many uses in the language. The one featured here is that it is used in sentences with modal verbs (eg can, must, want in Na'vi, I think the verbs that can be used modally are marked in the dictionary). Basically, the verb paired with the modal verb gets the iv infix.

<irv> in this case would make it mean something like "can you be speaking Na'vi" which is rather weird. I don't think we know whether or not this works in Na'vi yet.

As for futa - verbs that cannot be used modally can only have nouns as their "arguments". What futa (and its companions, fula, fwa, and furia) does is transforms a whole clause (part of a sentence) into a noun. That sentence would approximate in English to:

Do you understand this speaking-Na'vily-thing?

[Ikran Ahiyìk]

Annnnnd I see that there is some terminology Im not following here... So that means I need to read the linguistics terminology.pdf... The apparent use of srak is obvious, however I don't follow the use/purpose of futa. You wrote:

Ngal tslam futa plltxe nìNa'vi srak?
Which I translate to mean... You understand this spoken Na'vi? Or something like that... Simply because the Na'vi to English dictionary translates futa as meaning this.

And since I am American, and Im trying to learn the Na'vi style of phrasing, I find phrasing the question as Ngal tslam lì'fya Na'vi srak? as rather English in presentation. And maybe this is the whole English thing here... Why is it inappropriate to ask if they understand the Na'vi language, verses asking if they understand the speaking of Na'vi? Just simple English phrasing versus Na'vi phrasing?

"You understand this spoken Na'vi?" would be another sentence... Ngal tslam faylì'ut leNa'vi srak?... just ignore it first.


Talk about the futa

Here is the sentence

Ngal tslam futa plltxe nìNa'vi srak?

To be more simple, change it into normal

Ngal tslam futa plltxe nìNa'vi.

And... broke it

Ngal tslam fì'ut a plltxe nìNa'vi.

Actually it is one sentence and one phrase

Ngal tslam fì'ut. / plltxe nìNa'vi
You understand this (thing). / to speak as a Na'vi

The attributive particle a is to connect the plltxe nìNa'vi to fì'ut.
Remember there is a -a- for adjectives like kilvan angim, ngima kilvan "long river"?
Now this single word a is the same thing, but on higher level. Not only adjectives can be connected, but also phrases, clauses.

Look at the main sentence first, any problems?

Ngal tslam fì'ut.
You understand this (thing).

What is "that thing?"

Fì'ut a plltxe nìNa'vi
This thing, which is to speak as a Na'vi

This is not a sentense, but a noun phrase only.
Then combine them together, you will get...

Ngal tslam fì'ut a plltxe nìNa'vi.

To become a question

Ngal tslam fì'ut a plltxe nìNa'vi srak?




The purpose of using attributive particle a with demonstratives (fì'u, fì'ut, fì'ul, fì'ur, fì'uri, fì-...) usually is to nominalize something, change something into noun or noun phrase, so that they can be a subject or object and can be put into the sentense.

Also I interpret
Nga tsun pivlltxe nìNa'vi srak?
You can roughly speak/understand Na'vi? 

Which makes quite a bit of sense to me... However, what doesn't make sense to me is why the infix <iv> is required.

Though while I think Im grasping a bit of a better concept as to proper uses of <iv>, why do we use just <iv> instead of <irv>, since it seems to be a the tense of this question is present. Since I am asking this person if the understand Na'vi at this current moment that I am speaking to them in Na'vi?

So would, Nga tsun pirvlltxe níNa'vi srak?, be completely wrong?

No, if there is modal verb, any subjunctive infix is fine, eg. «irv», «ilv», «ìyev», «imv»...
But you must have the subjunctive mood, *Nga tsun plltxe nìNa'vi srak? is really wrong.

For that sentence, I think adding «er» is a bit strange.
"Can you speak Na'vi?" The speak here is general, for anytime, I don't take any tense on it.

I cannot explain it clealy because I'm not a native English speaker, my native language don't have tenses...


Edit: "A verb used with a modal takes onlt pre-first position infixes and «iv». Other infixes go in the modal." from here.
So even you want it takes imperfective, it would be
Nga tserun pivlltxe nìNa'vi srak?

Thanks to omängum fra'uti and Nyx

[Seze]

I can't answer all of your questions, but I think I can help on a few...

Simply because the Na'vi to English dictionary translates futa as meaning this.

Futa = Fi'u-t a, which is Fi'u with a patientive case marker plus the attribution marker.  So for Nga-l tslam futa plltxe nìNa'vi srak? It means "You understand this thing, and this thing is speaking in Na'vi, yes/no?"  The whole reason for futa is due to the way Na'vi sentences are constructed.  Quoting "Na'vi in a Nutshell" Section 8.1.3: Futa has no literal English translation.  It serves as a place holder or marker for phrases that follow.  I highly recommend you check out Na'vi in a Nutshell if you haven't already.  

Also I interpret
Nga tsun pivlltxe nìNa'vi srak?
You can roughly speak/understand Na'vi?  

Which makes quite a bit of sense to me... However, what doesn't make sense to me is why the infix <iv> is required.

Though while I think Im grasping a bit of a better concept as to proper uses of <iv>, why do we use just <iv> instead of <irv>, since it seems to be a the tense of this question is present. Since I am asking this person if the understand Na'vi at this current moment that I am speaking to them in Na'vi?

<iv> is required whenever you use a modal verb, and tsun is a modal verb.  Your question on <irv> seems to boil down to your understanding or <er>.  <er> is not the present tense, it marks an ongoing action, and <ol> marks the completion of an ongoing action.  In English, these would be the equivalents of I am hunting, and I hunted (now finished/completed action).   There are a couple really good resources out there you should take a look at that can explain this a lot better than I can,  first is this prezi, and the second is Nyx's infix chart.

[omängum fra'uti]

Ngal tslam fì'ut. / plltxe nìNa'vi
You understand this (thing). / to speak as a Na'vi

Translating "plltxe" as the English infinitive (to speak) is incorrect - Na'vi doesn't really have an infinitive, so it needs a subject still.  Left unstated the subject is still "you", which is why I said that it would be translated rather as "You understand that you speak Na'vi".

No, if there is modal verb, any subjunctive infix is fine, eg. «irv», «ilv», «ìyev», «imv»...

Not so, only the subjunctive, nothing else except pre-first infixes allowed.

[Ftxavang Pamtseotu]

Irayo sí Eywa ngahu ma smukan!

The model verbs are indeed in Na'vi in a Nutshell but it doesn't address anything saying that <iv> MUST be used with this model verbs. The only thing it really alludes to, but doesn't say is a MUST, is the <iv> infix is always used with kä (go). Which makes immediate sense to me as I was understanding <iv> as simply a tense modifier. But that is an interpretation mistake on my part as it clearly says that when using it with compounds that do refer to the tense. i.e. íyev is a future tense and the <iv> serves as representing a possibility. Hence ivíy...

futa and it's likeness fwa, etc... Is still confusing to me as it is explained in chapter 8 of Na'vi in a Nutshell, but the way you explained it Muzer makes much more sense. Something tells me I'll be back in due time, with questions about it as well.

EDIT:  Irayo Seze!! That was one thing that really really got me was that it states in the Nutshell as futa being a place holder. Which really threw me, but when Muzer said it, it made sense. However, it seems to me the use of futa is just something as "that's just the way it is in Na'vi..."

[Ikran Ahiyìk]

Ngal tslam fì'ut. / plltxe nìNa'vi
You understand this (thing). / to speak as a Na'vi

Translating "plltxe" as the English infinitive (to speak) is incorrect - Na'vi doesn't really have an infinitive, so it needs a subject still.  Left unstated the subject is still "you", which is why I said that it would be translated rather as "You understand that you speak Na'vi".

No, if there is modal verb, any subjunctive infix is fine, eg. «irv», «ilv», «ìyev», «imv»...

Not so, only the subjunctive, nothing else except pre-first infixes allowed.

I get something.
Under my long quiet-learning something lost...
Thanks for your pointing

EDIT:  Irayo Seze!! That was one thing that really really got me was that it states in the Nutshell as futa being a place holder. Which really threw me, but when Muzer said it, it made sense. However, it seems to me the use of futa is just something as "that's just the way it is in Na'vi..."

It is very interesting after you understand it

[Ftxavang Pamtseotu]

I understand the model verb thing and need/MUST of having to us <iv> and I understand that the tenses provided are in reference to ongoing events.

though my confusion on futa and it's like, are place holders. What does it hold the place of? Or is it as I said in the EDIT of my last post, and that's just the way it is with Na'vi?

[Ikran Ahiyìk]

I understand the model verb thing and need/MUST of having to us <iv> and I understand that the tenses provided are in reference to ongoing events.

though my confusion on futa and it's like, are place holders. What does it hold the place of? Or is it as I said in the EDIT of my last post, and that's just the way it is with Na'vi?

The «er», «ol» talking about ongoing or completed actions are moods. There are differences between tenses and moods.



For the futa thing, the main point is the a inside. It is used for...

What futa (and its companions, fula, fwa, and furia) does is transforms a whole clause (part of a sentence) into a noun.

[omängum fra'uti]

I understand the model verb thing and need/MUST of having to us <iv> and I understand that the tenses provided are in reference to ongoing events.

though my confusion on futa and it's like, are place holders. What does it hold the place of? Or is it as I said in the EDIT of my last post, and that's just the way it is with Na'vi?

It's a place holder for the following clause.  Consider this progression of complexity.

Oel new fì'ut.
I want this thing.

Oel new fì'ut aean.
I want this blue thing.

Oel new fì'ut a io oe.
I want this thing that is above me.

Oel new fì'ut a oe hivum
I want this thing that is I would leave (I want to leave)

The reason that a placeholder is needed in most cases is because of the free word order and the noun case marking.  You need a noun which gets the appropriate case marking, and you need something to indicate that there is a new concept there for a clause.  Though in some simple cases (Modal verbs) you can omit some of it.

Oe new hivum
I want to leave

[Seze]

What does it hold the place of? Or is it as I said in the EDIT of my last post, and that's just the way it is with Na'vi?

It holds the place of the following phrase.  In the below quote, which shows the original sentence split into 2 sentences, to join the two together, add "a" to fì'ut which attributes the following phrase to fì'ut.  That creates: Ngal tslam futa plltxe nìNa'vi.

Ngal tslam fì'ut. / plltxe nìNa'vi
You understand this (thing). / to speak as a Na'vi

[Ftxavang Pamtseotu]

Alright, lets give this a go...


So fí'ut is to serve as a marker/place holder that indicates that there is a combining of sentences, or a sentence and a phrase such as demonstrated by Ikran Ahiyík:

Ngal tslam fì'ut a plltxe nìNa'vi.

Actually it is one sentence and one phrase

Ngal tslam fì'ut. / plltxe nìNa'vi
You understand this (thing). / to speak as a Na'vi

fi' = this 'u=thing... combine to get fi'u, or fí'ut, and or its partners fwa, futa, etc...

the addition of the "a" to fí'ut is an indication of these two phrases or sentence and phrase together as one statement and/or question.

If I understand this entire thing correctly...  Ahiyík said, Ngal tslam fí'ut a plltxe níNa'vi srak? However, this is a bit too formal, but also correct in concept. But the more appropriate way would be to combine fí'ut and "a" into futa. Thus giving us Ngal tslam futa plltxe ni'Na'vi srak? translation "You understand this thing to speak the Na'vi language yes/no?"

And to combine everything discussed in terms of modal usage of <iv> infix and the use of futa. (Taken from the Navi to English dictionary) Ngal new futa oe wivem You want this thing: for me to fight; futa as a place holder between the connection of a sentence and phrase. And it is futa instead of fí'ut because we are using "a" to connect the two together, and making this a bit easier to say by combining fí'ut and "a" together to become futa, and <iv> is being used because of futa, a modal.

[Seze]

Sounds like you're starting to understand...

[Ikran Ahiyìk]

Alright, lets give this a go...


So fí'ut is to serve as a marker/place holder that indicates that there is a combining of sentences, or a sentence and a phrase such as demonstrated by Ikran Ahiyík:

Ngal tslam fì'ut a plltxe nìNa'vi.

Actually it is one sentence and one phrase

Ngal tslam fì'ut. / plltxe nìNa'vi
You understand this (thing). / to speak as a Na'vi

fi' = this 'u=thing... combine to get fi'u, or fí'ut, and or its partners fwa, futa, etc...

the addition of the "a" to fí'ut is an indication of these two phrases or sentence and phrase together as one statement and/or question.

Actually the sentence is...

Though I would interpret "Ngal tslam futa plltxe nìNa'vi srak?" as "Do you understand that you speak Na'vi?"

But for the futa, yeah you get it correctly.



We can work on your another sentence

You understand the Na'vi language?
Ngal tslam lì'fyat leNa'vi srak?

Because lì'fyat leNa'vi is already a noun phrase, so we don't need futa or this kind of thing.
If it's not a noun phrase, we need to nominalize it (change it into a noun).

If I understand this entire thing correctly...  Ahiyík said, Ngal tslam fí'ut a plltxe níNa'vi srak? However, this is a bit too formal, but also correct in concept. But the more appropriate way would be to combine fí'ut and "a" into futa. Thus giving us Ngal tslam futa plltxe ni'Na'vi srak? translation "You understand this thing to speak the Na'vi language yes/no?"

Sorry, after coping it I forgot to change it back. They mean the same thing, but as you said the first one is too formal, and it is difficult to read it fast too.

And to combine everything discussed in terms of modal usage of <iv> infix and the use of futa. (Taken from the Navi to English dictionary) Ngal new futa oe wivem You want this thing: for me to fight; futa as a place holder between the connection of a sentence and phrase. And it is futa instead of fí'ut because we are using "a" to connect the two together, and making this a bit easier to say by combining fí'ut and "a" together to become futa, and <iv> is being used because of futa, a modal.

Be careful, futa is not modal but new is. No problem other than this

Ngal new futa oe wivem.
You want this thing, which is I fight.
You want this I-fight-thing.
You want me to fight.

[Ftxavang Pamtseotu]

Wou!!!!!

Makes me quite happy that I was able to piece that together rather quickly. And I think I explained it well enough that it seems pretty obvious for anyone that may come along with similar issues understanding these concepts. Rock on!