Re: You don't have to?

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

ma 'eylan
kame ngat

if you want to say don't have to just write ke zene
ke zene=don't have to
zenke=musn't

Eywa ngahu

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Kaltxì ma kanua Yayo 

I just wonder, you say zenke (ke zene) if you say that one must not...
Nga zenke yivom oeti!

For 'must not' to people or animals (with a will), you use rä`ä

Nga rä`ä yom oeti!

An imperative command does not need the <iv> infix because it is not wishful or polite.

And thats ok, but how would you say, that one dos not have to.
You don't have to drink.
Nga zeneke niväk
That becomes more a comand then an nice way of saying that you dosen't have to. Right?

Your second example is more polite, so you would use the <iv> infix. Also, you would use tsun (can) rather than zene (must). Thus:

Nga ke tsun ke niväk

The second ke is needed (I think) because of the Na`vi requirement for double negatives. But maybe in this canse the second keis not needed because the recipient of the message has a choice whether or not to drink.

Others may have better ideas.

[Plumps]

Kaltxì ma kanua Yayo 

I just wonder, you say zenke (ke zene) if you say that one must not...
Nga zenke yivom oeti!

For 'must not' to people or animals (with a will), you use rä`ä

Nga rä`ä yom oeti!

Both are valid, I think. One is for a statement, the other for a command

   nga ke zene yivom tsat, "you don't have to eat that" (statement)
   nga zenke yivom tsat, "you must not eat that" (it has been forbitten) (statement)
   tsat rä'ä yom! or tsat rä'ä yivom! "don't eat that!" (command)
   rä'ä yom ngal tsat! or rä'ä yivom ngal tsat! "don't you eat that!" (as a warning, same as Neytiri's ftang nga! "you stop (that)" (i.e., hitting the ayatokirina')) (command)

An imperative command does not need the <iv> infix because it is not wishful or polite.

And thats ok, but how would you say, that one dos not have to.
You don't have to drink.
Nga zeneke niväk
That becomes more a comand then an nice way of saying that you dosen't have to. Right?

Your second example is more polite, so you would use the <iv> infix.

The notion of politeness with imperatives and ‹iv› is a misreading, I think. Frommer stated clearly:

Imperatives, either positive or negative, have two forms: either the bare root or the -iv- form. At an earlier point in the history of the language there was probably a polite/familiar distinction (the -iv- form being the politer one), but that's no longer the case. They're used interchangeably. So to say "Go!" you can say either kivä or just kä.

Of course, if the community started to use it like that again then that would be a natural (back) development

Also, you would use tsun (can) rather than zene (must). Thus:

Nga ke tsun ke niväk

The second ke is needed (I think) because of the Na`vi requirement for double negatives. But maybe in this canse the second keis not needed because the recipient of the message has a choice whether or not to drink.

No, I think the second ke is not needed because these are two sentences put together. Also, I think your translation is slightly off, but I could be wrong here since I'm not a native speaker; for me there is a difference between 'you are not able/can't drink' (ke tsun) and 'you don't have to drink' (see examples above)

There's yet another possibility
   ke lu ngaru kea tìkin a näk, "you don't have the need to drink"
   ke lu kea tìkin a näk, "there's no need to drink"

Ah, so many possibilities that's what makes a language!

[Sireayä mokri]

No, I think the second ke is not needed because these are two sentences put together. Also, I think your translation is slightly off, but I could be wrong here since I'm not a native speaker; for me there is a difference between 'you are not able/can't drink' (ke tsun) and 'you don't have to drink' (see examples above)

There's yet another possibility
   ke lu ngaru kea tìkin a näk, "you don't have the need to drink"
   ke lu kea tìkin a näk, "there's no need to drink"

Ah, so many possibilities that's what makes a language!

I agree on "second ke", double negative is used with words like kawkrr, kawtu, kaw'it, ke'u etc.

And I like "ke lu tìkin" construction here as well.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I know there are so many shades of meaning being discussed here. This is the same idea, but from a more positive sense. I think it may be closer than anything yet suggested:

Nga zivene ftxivey näkit (doggone infinitives!)

[Sireayä mokri]

Nga zivene ftxivey näkit (doggone infinitives!)

Näk is a verb, thus patientive can't be applied on it. And for may I think we should use tsun:

Nga tsun ftxivey niväk.

Or you can use fuke:

Nga tsun ftxivey futa näk fuke.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Nga zivene ftxivey näkit (doggone infinitives!)

Näk is a verb, thus patientive can't be applied on it. And for may I think we should use tsun:

Nga tsun ftxivey niväk.

Growl!
What a skxawng oversight on my part!

Or you can use fuke:

Nga tsun ftxivey futa näk fuke.

Tsa`u lu txantsan nang