Who is under tree?

Started by Blue Elf, June 12, 2012, 03:18:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Blue Elf

Some time ago we had conversation about this sentence:
I saw him under the tree.

We found these Na'vi translations:
Oel tsole'a tutet a äo utral - I saw person which was under the tree (it is not clear where I was)
Oel tsole'a tuteot krra (oel) tok tsenget a äo utral - I saw someone when I was under the tree (if that person was under the tree is not clear)
Now what about:
Oel tsole'a tutet äo utral - what does it mean - who was under tree or is it well-formed sentence?
It is similar to Po tul äo utral - He runs under the tree, so....

Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tanri

Another nice example is "Po heyn äo utral", and it helps explain my thought.

Undoubtedly, if the "äo utral" is connected to some specific constituent as in "tute a äo utral" or mentioned inside a separate clause, the meaning is clear, without ambiquity.
But what happens when such a noun with adposition (äo utral) isn't connected to some other non-verbal constituent?
In my opinion, only one possibility arises: this kind of noun with adpositions is related to the verb itself, to the action represented by verb. They can be looked at as a sort of adverbs.

Po heyn äo utral - He is sitting under the tree.
Here I have subject, verb, and "adpositioned noun" that behaves like adverb, because it directly modifies the circumstances of the action.
One can sit quietly, patiently, without moving, for a long time, under the tree - only first two examples are true adverbs, others are grammatically another kind of words, but they behave like adverbs - just because they do not specify some properties of subject or object, but they modify the action itself.

So, back to the "Oel tsole'a tutet äo utral":
It is clear that "äo utral" is related to the verb. The explanation above tells me everything I want to know about grammatical structure, but it not explains me the meaning of such sentence. I think that meaning and usability of this kind of sentences, depends purely on the verb.
For example, I can sit, fly, run, fight, relax, live, stay under the tree. All this is perfectly meaningful. And all of these verbs are intransitive.
To the opposite, I hardly can see, throw, touch, protect, chase, read, release under the tree. There is missing object, and even with it I cannot understand the meaning in the same way for all of these transitive verbs:
1) "I see X under the tree" means "X is under the tree, and I see it there" - "under tree" has attributive manner
2) "I protect X under the tree" can have both meanings - "I do the protective action under the tree", and also "X is under the tree, and I protect it there" - "under tree" can have both attributive and adverbial meaning.

To make short conclusion from lot of text: ;)
From my opinion, the meaning of sentences like "Oel tsole'a tutet äo utral" (where the adpositioned noun is not connected to any other non-verbal element), heavily depends on the verb.
Intransitive verbs can be used safely in this type of sentences, however transitive ones require a lot of attention as they can result into ambiguity in meaning, or they can have no reasonable meaning at all.
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

Seze Mune

Quote from: Blue Elf on June 12, 2012, 03:18:31 PM
Some time ago we had conversation about this sentence:
I saw him under the tree.

We found these Na'vi translations:
Oel tsole'a tutet a äo utral - I saw person which was under the tree (it is not clear where I was)
Oel tsole'a tuteot krra (oel) tok tsenget a äo utral - I saw someone when I was under the tree (if that person was under the tree is not clear)
Now what about:
Oel tsole'a tutet äo utral - what does it mean - who was under tree or is it well-formed sentence?
It is similar to Po tul äo utral - He runs under the tree, so....

As I read it, the sentence could be as ambiguous in English as it is in Na'vi.  To make it clear, one would have to say I saw him while he was under the tree. or I saw him while I was under the tree.

I suppose that only muddies the waters, doesn't it?



Blue Elf

Quote from: Seze Mune on June 12, 2012, 07:28:12 PM
I suppose that only muddies the waters, doesn't it?
I don't think so - IMHO there is core of the problem. Na'vi is language, which differentiates meanings more than English or other languages (think how many pe+ words you can use on the place where English uses just "what" - Na'vi are very specific, "what thing", "what action"....)
Our sentence is really not specific, therefore ambiguos, so we need more context in English and according it use the first or second translation I created.

IMO Tanri's analysis is great, but it would be great to hear also other voices.
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tanri

Quote from: Blue Elf on June 13, 2012, 03:46:07 AM
...it would be great to hear also other voices.
Indeed. I only tried to explain the ambiguity in some way, not to find the solution.

Quote from: Seze Mune on June 12, 2012, 07:28:12 PM
As I read it, the sentence could be as ambiguous in English as it is in Na'vi.  To make it clear, one would have to say I saw him while he was under the tree. or I saw him while I was under the tree.
I suppose that only muddies the waters, doesn't it?
A little. The ambiguities like this are inevitable in every language, if someone will drop (or not say at all) an important part of meaning.
This example also reminded me that the level of ambiguity can differ for people across the world, so it's always better to "overshoot" the translation than to miss something.
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

Seze Mune

I agree with trying to overshoot it, especially if precision in meaning is critical.  On the other hand, I've experienced trying to button something down fifty ways from Sunday and it can still be misperceived (imho). :)