X of Y, and X made/full of Y

[Kame Ayyo’koti]

Na'vi uses the possessive to create forms like:

tsmuk-e oe-yä
Meaning: Sister of mine

Or:
txìm palulukan-ä
Meaning: rear end of a thanator

But I was thinking, sometimes in English we use the phrase "X of Y" not to mean possession, but as short-hand for other expressions. For example: "field of flowers." This doesn't mean "(the) flower's field," but "a field (full/made/comprised) of flowers." But the structure of the phrase is similar to possession.

My question is, does Na'vi work the same way?:
txayo ay-syulang-ä
"field of flowers"?

tsngal pay-ä
"cup of water"?

Or would these phrases require a different structure? Maybe:
txayo a ay-syulang-hu
"field with flowers"

tsngal a pay-fa t<am>eya si
"cup that is filled with water"

We have Utral Aymokriyä, although I think that could mean "the Voices' Tree" as much as "the Tree (made of/containing) Voices."

[Tìtstewan]

For "field of flowers", I would use

txayo a teya ay-syulang-ta / txayo a teya ay-syulang-hu
field that (is) full with flowers

Edit: we need an adjective of lew si - cover...
I'm not sure regarding the construction with hu, but it should work too.

Utral Aymokriyä is possesive "the voices' tree" / tree of voices

tsngal a pay-fa t<am>eya si "cup that is filled with water"

Regarding to this verb, all infixes go into the si part -> X s<0><1><2>i
Also I would just use teya (adjective)

tsngal lu teya pay-ta / tsngal lu teya pay-hu  tsngal lu teya pay-fa
"cup is filled/full with water"

or

tsngal a-teya pay-ta / tsngal a-teya pay-hu / tsngal a-teya pay-fa
"filled/full cup with water"

EDIT: or

tsngal a teya pay-ta / tsngal a teya pay-hu /tsngal a teya pay-fa
"cup which (is) filled/full with water"

[Plumps]

My question is, does Na'vi work the same way?:
txayo ay-syulang-ä
"field of flowers"?

tsngal pay-ä
"cup of water"?

Yes, in general it does. Although, we also talk semantics here (and it is great to see that you are thinking about these kinds of implications because often I've seen, that one doesn't)

All examples of teya so far use ta to mean "full of/filled with". So, I'd say,

     txayo a teya ay-syulang-ta

[Tìtstewan]

All examples of teya so far use ta to mean "full of/filled with". So, I'd say,     txayo a teya ay-syulang-ta

Work that ta also with cup full of water? *asking to be sure about this*

[Plumps]

If it works for "nose full of his alien smell" (a line from the movie) I say it works for "cup full of water" as well

[Tìtstewan]

So, I went back and re-edited my post, because it's way better to use ta (why I forgot that sentence?). Irayo!

[Kemaweyan]

If it works for "nose full of his alien smell" (a line from the movie) I say it works for "cup full of water" as well

Hmm... I'm not so sure. There is not this phrase in the movie, I just listened that moment and I don't hear any words after fahew akewong. There are not words ontu teyä längu in that phrase

[Plumps]

But it's supposed to be. We all know that the actors messed up lines and that the language was not JC's primary concern The link I gave is what Pawl translated for the movie lines—I'll stick with that.

[Tìtstewan]

Not in the movie, but in this blog: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1977 (Case part) ?

Oeri	ta	peyä	fahew	akewong	ontu	teya	längu.
I-TOP	from	his	smell	alien	nose	full	is-NEG-ATTITUDE

[Taronyu Leleioae]

Oeri ta peyä fahew akewong ontu teya längu.
I-TOP from his smell alien nose full is-NEG-ATTITUDE

Interesting that "oeri" was split from "ontu".  I had always thought they had to be together with (inalienable) possession.

I don't believe using "hu" would be correct either.  As it generally means with (as accompaniment).  Such as...   "She walked with me."

[Tìtstewan]

I don't believe using "hu" would be correct either.  As it generally means with (as accompaniment).  Such as...   "She walked with me."

I knew this question will occure
-->

2. mesyalhu a ikran I like that the best. Seems quite natural.

Spoiler: full text

Feb 18

Sìpawm ngeyä ke lu ftue [...]! Slä lu sìltsan.

OK, let's see . . .

1. mesyalä ikran

Strikes me as a little odd, but I guess it's OK. "An ikran of two wings." Parallel to "a man of few words." Genitives are used for many purposes.

2. mesyalhu a ikran

I like that the best. Seems quite natural.

3. *mesyal a ikran

Right. That should be ruled out.

4. ?mesyal lu a ikran

This is the most interesting one. I don't think it should be considered acceptable, but it touches on wider issues.

Assuming the RC starts out this way:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran

[Digression: I've been preferring lu-initial order for "have" constructions: Lu ikranur mesyal. But that's not a hard-and-fast rule, so I'll keep the above order, which better reflects your example.}

The question, of course, is what do you do with the coref. NP in the RC--delete or pronominalize?

As I'm sure you know, languages have different hierarchies with respect to what happens to coref. NPs. Subjects are the most deletable, followed by DOs, followed by obliques, followed by comparatives . . . (It's been a long time since I looked carefully at this stuff, but I think that's correct.) So, for example, in English you can say "He's the man I spoke to" but in many other languages you have to say "He's the man that I spoke to him."

In the Na'vi case, coref. NP deletion only extends as far as DOs. So for datives, you need to pronominalize:

*[ikranur mesyal lu] a ikran > poru mesyal lu a ikran

Other word orders work too, of course: lu poru mesyal a ikran (I like that one the best), mesyal lu poru a ikran, etc.

[Taronyu Leleioae]

There was also the clarification made (I think mostly through PM though that I had done with Plumps awhile back) where we had the English spoken in the film by Neytiri:
"You may make your bow from the wood of Hometree."

If I remember correctly, Plumps checked with Karyu Pawl and "ta" was the correct word.
Using "ta", imo there is some flexibility.  One could say "from".  One could also infer "containing" referring to the material, in this case "the wood of Hometree".

(ma Plumps, please correct me if I'm wrong...  It's a good question.)

[Tìtstewan]

Plumps asked this due the Avatar meet in Germany:

I asked him about the range of ta for the sentence 'You may make your bow from the wood of hometree'. He said, ta would be fine for that.

As for hu, it is highly difficult to use it in a corect context. I personally wouldn't use such constructions with hu in it, but (at the moment) it is could be possible...

[Kame Ayyo’koti]

This thread is a bit old, but I'd like to add a bit more.

All examples of teya so far use ta to mean "full of/filled with". So, I'd say,

    txayo a teya ay-syulang-ta[/size][/font]

I like this construction. Although I'd like you to clarify regarding the relative clause: Would the "full" relative clause then be?:
Txayo lu teya ay-syulang-ta.
A.m.: The field is full of flowers.

I ask because I don't fully understand the structure of it. I'm used to relative clauses having a verb at least, or more of a sentence.

I thought of another case like this, which introduces a problem. I learned the word sästarsìm, and thought of a phrase like, "My collection of rocks." If we used the construction in my initial post, it would require double-genitives, which is odd:
oe-yä sästarsìm ay-skxe-yä

But Plumps's answer is much better:
oe-yä sästarsìm a teya ay-skxe-ta
A.m.: my collection that is full of rocks

[Plumps]

I like this construction. Although I'd like you to clarify regarding the relative clause: Would the "full" relative clause then be?:
Txayo lu teya ay-syulang-ta.
A.m.: The field is full of flowers.

Srane

This is of course a complete sentence in itself. The 'shortened' relative clause allows for further description, though, e.g.
Txayo a teya ay-syulang-ta lu lor nìtxan.
The field (full) of flowers is very beautiful.

I ask because I don't fully understand the structure of it. I'm used to relative clauses having a verb at least, or more of a sentence.

That's why I tend to call them 'shortened relative clauses' ... don't know if that is really linguistic

Concerning the structure...
It's really got to do with the adposition. Na'vi doesn't allow the structure to be *txayo teya ta aysyulang* because here the noun (txayo) is described in more detail by an adposition. There are exceptions in kind of a news-headline-style called truncated style but for the sake of 'correct' Na'vi I try to avoid that

I thought of another case like this, which introduces a problem. I learned the word sästarsìm, and thought of a phrase like, "My collection of rocks." If we used the construction in my initial post, it would require double-genitives, which is odd:
*oe-yä sästarsìm ay-skxe-yä

But completely valid

oe-yä sästarsìm a teya ay-skxe-ta
A.m.: my collection that is full of rocks

Possible as well. As with other languages, there is never only one answer to a translation