translation of 'not known'

[Tìlu]

I just want the words 'not known' but I'm not sure how you would translate that if it's possible.
Would it just be this?:

ke <am>omum
not known

(i believe the word known would be past tense?)

And it'd be in the sense of a name not being known, if that's relevant.

[Kemaweyan]

Right translation of not known would be a fkol ke omum. If you add an infix -am- to a verb, it makes just a past tense but not a passive voice.

[Tìlu]

Do you think you could explain like what each word means and like, how they affect the words around them with that (if you don't mind)? I think that's what's getting me really confused with this.

[Kemaweyan]

Well, could you give a phrase which you want to translate?

[Tìlu]

Translate from English into Na'vi?
His name is not known. - that would work.

(if that's what you meant)

[Kemaweyan]

Right. In Na'vi it would be peyä tstxot ke omum fkol (literally his name is not known) or peyä tstxot ke omum kawtul (literally no one knows his name, but it sounds more natural for me).

[Tìlu]

That kind of makes a bit more sense now I think. Though the affixes still confuse me a bit, though practice and time might help with that.

[Tirea Aean]

Kemaweyan is right.

Ma Tìlu, in Na'vi there is no such structure as the passive voice, a commonly used structure in many languages, especially English.

These English sentences all feature the passive voice structure; note what they have in common:

The story was told by my father.
The lesson was interrupted.
The tree is being destroyed.
Food is gathered daily.
I will be accepted.
The answer will be found.

Basically, when you have this:

[NOUN] [was / is being / will be] [past participle of VERB]

then you have a passive sentence. Which means the subject who is doing the action is not mentioned or is added after the sentence (e.g. "....by my father")

in Na'vi, in this kind of case, we just say that some generic anonymous entity (="fko") does it.

So when you see a sentence like this:

Fkol starsìm syuveti.

You can translate to English two different ways:

Direct: One collects food.
Passive: Food is being collected.

Personally, I always just translate it to whichever feels more natural because they both pretty much mean the same thing.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

So when you see a sentence like this:

Fkol starsìm syuveti.

You can translate to English two different ways:

Direct: One collects food.
Passive: Food is being collected.

Personally, I always just translate it to whichever feels more natural because they both pretty much mean the same thing.

So is the second, passive translation possible because fko can be translated as 'it'? Whenever I see fko, my tendency is to translate it as 'one'. Thus I would always translate as the first example, and not the second. If I meant the second in Na'vi, I would want to use *Syuve leru starsim, but Na'vi really doesn't like two verbs being used together except in a modal construction. If the subject is left out of the sentence, it is often hard for me to translate into Na'vi, as constructions like fkol starsim syuvet don't translate well without using fko as a pronoun for a person.

[Tìtstewan]

As Na'vi doesn't have passive voice by design, one (the translator) can choose the way of translation.
I think, this is not limited only with the use of fko, because I see no reason, why I couldn't translate this example in another way:

Oel tse'a pot.
-> I see him.
OR
-> He is seen by me.

[Tirea Aean]

So when you see a sentence like this:

Fkol starsìm syuveti.

You can translate to English two different ways:

Direct: One collects food.
Passive: Food is being collected.

Personally, I always just translate it to whichever feels more natural because they both pretty much mean the same thing.

So is the second, passive translation possible because fko can be translated as 'it'?

No. Fko isn't ever really translated as it.

Whenever I see fko, my tendency is to translate it as 'one'. Thus I would always translate as the first example, and not the second.

Which makes sense due to the definition. And also because when you have an ENglish sentence saying "One collects food", then clearly that can go 1:1 into Na'vi as is. (Because it is not a passive sentence.)

What is your tendency to translate this: Syuveti fkol starsìm

If I meant the second in Na'vi, I would want to use *Syuve leru starsim, but Na'vi really doesn't like two verbs being used together except in a modal construction.

That's not wrong because it's two verbs, it's wrong because it's trying to go 1:1 with English grammatical structure for which Na'vi has no exact equivalent. A compiler would give a null pointer exception or something for this logic.

You actually can chain two verbs back to back in Na'vi; it just gives the sense that they were executed in chronological sequence:

Weynflitit 'angtsìkìl srolu' tspang.
'Wainfleet was crushed and killed by a hammerhead.'

sru' and tspang are the verbs.

If the subject is left out of the sentence, it is often hard for me to translate into Na'vi, as constructions like fkol starsim syuvet don't translate well without using fko as a pronoun for a person.

You /can/ translate such sentences such that fko comes out in English as "one". But this is not the only choice. If the subject is missing in the original sentence, the you KNOW that the person who did it in Na'vi is going to be fko, the generic unspecified entity.

As Na'vi doesn't have passive voice by design, one (the translator) can choose the way of translation.
I think, this is not limited only with the use of fko, because I see no reason, why I couldn't translate this example in another way:

Oel tse'a pot.
-> I see him.
OR
-> He is seen by me.

^ And pretty much this, except I'd be more inclined to do this:

Oel tse'a pot -> I see him.
Poti tse'a oel -> He is seen by me.

[Tìtstewan]

As Na'vi doesn't have passive voice by design, one (the translator) can choose the way of translation. I think, this is not limited only with the use of fko, because I see no reason, why I couldn't translate this example in another way: Oel tse'a pot. -> I see him. OR -> He is seen by me. ^ And pretty much this, except I'd be more inclined to do this: Oel tse'a pot -> I see him. Poti tse'a oel -> He is seen by me.

I somehow wouldn't do this, because that would implies that the Na'vi *know* about passive voice and using such a word order that mean to be a passive. That would be extra weird, because the Na'vi hasn't passive voice, so why they would use a specific word order if all other word orders would mean the same?

[Blue Elf]

As Na'vi doesn't have passive voice by design, one (the translator) can choose the way of translation. I think, this is not limited only with the use of fko, because I see no reason, why I couldn't translate this example in another way: Oel tse'a pot. -> I see him. OR -> He is seen by me. ^ And pretty much this, except I'd be more inclined to do this: Oel tse'a pot -> I see him. Poti tse'a oel -> He is seen by me.

I somehow wouldn't do this, because that would implies that the Na'vi *know* about passive voice and using such a word order that mean to be a passive. That would be extra weird, because the Na'vi hasn't passive voice, so why they would use a specific word order if all other word orders would mean the same?

It doesn't have to be related to passive voice. For example in Slavic languages we have free constituent order (I don't want to say free word order), but some orders are not common, they are used to emphasize something  specific, like:
Já vidím ho -> I see him - you want to emphasize, that you see HIM, not other person
Já ho vidím  -> I see him - you want to emphasize, that YOU see him, not other person sees him
So I'm agree more with you than with Tirea Aean

[Kemaweyan]

I agree with Blue Elf

[Tirea Aean]

Na'vi word order /does/ have to do some with emphasis. But this...

Here's the pre-existing thread on passive:

http://forum.learnnavi.org/advanced-grammar/passive-in-navi/