Zola'u nìprrte'

[Tängal]

I have small question about this quite popular phrase.
As I guess Zola'u is Z<ol>a'u so "have came" and nìprrte' is quite simple meaning "with pleasure". But if you combine those two meanings it does not seem to be "welcome".

Is it some sort of Na'vi idiom or my way of thinking is somehow odd?

[omängum fra'uti]

That doesn't seem to be "Welcome"?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary...

from willa "pleasure, desire, choice" (see will (v.)) + cuma "guest," related to cuman (see come)

But yes, it is a bit idiomatic.

As a side note on idioms and etymology...  "Eywa ngahu" can actually be seen as a direct translation of "Goodbye" - which is etymologically from "Good be with you".

[Tängal]

That doesn't seem to be "Welcome"?

After that explanation, yes it seem a little bit. Thanks

As a side note on idioms and etymology...  "Eywa ngahu" can actually be seen as a direct translation of "Goodbye" - which is etymologically from "Good be with you".

This seems to be simpler, just "Eywa with you".

BTW would it be correct: "Eywa ngahu lu ko!" as "Let Eywa be with you!" so with adding this "let be"?

[omängum fra'uti]

The full form of Eywa ngahu would be Eywa ngahu livu, the "livu" is just left off.  But "goodbye" has the "with" (And part of the "be") left off as well these days as well as a contraction...

ko doesn't quite mean "let", it is just translated like that in some contexts - usually for imperatives.

[Payä Tìrol]

Idioms tend to omit things for the sake of brevity:
Eywa ngahu livu. -Missing a verb of sorts: May Eywa be with you.
Oel ngati Kìyevame. -Subject and Object are both implied: May I see you. (In the future)

There was actually a discussion about zola'u nìprrte' in the idioms sticky above. Basically, you welcome someone when they actually arrive, no?
So <ol> is something along the lines of "Arrived Pleasantly". Not too far from "Come Well", imo

[Tängal]

ko doesn't quite mean "let", it is just translated like that in some contexts - usually for imperatives.

Thanks, I hope I understand. Like "Makto ko!" meaning I want to ride so let's do it. While <iv> is rather hoping.

Basically, you welcome someone when they actually arrive, no?
So <ol> is something along the lines of "Arrived Pleasantly". Not too far from "Come Well", imo

Well, now I see it. Thanks!

Oe irayo seiyi ayngaru! 

[kewnya txamew'itan]

ko doesn't quite mean "let", it is just translated like that in some contexts - usually for imperatives.

Thanks, I hope I understand. Like "Makto ko!" meaning I want to ride so let's do it. While <iv> is rather hoping.

Not quite.

Makto ko doesn't necessarily imply that the person saying it wants to ride or even that there's more than one person potentially riding unlike let's ride which implies both. Ko is best glossed as "do you agree" or just as "particle for solicitation of agreement" the first of which isn't much better than let's for accuracy and the second of which isn't particularly helpful.

Examples of cases where it wouldn't be translated as let's are listed below:

At a barbecue there's one burger left and I want it, in English I might say "does anyone want the last burger?" "can I have the last burger" or possibly just take it, in na'vi, I could say "oel perkìt asyen yìyom ko?". Ultimately the English examples are asking for agreement or permission for me to eat the last burger, but na'vi can ask it much more directly.

Likewise, if I've been ordered to ride a direhorse into battle but I hate riding direhorses and I want to make sure that I have to I might say "oe zene mivakto pa'lit ko". I wouldn't use srak because I'm almost certain that I will get told no and I am just checking by asking for agreement or confirmation.

Lastly, say I'm going to be the next olo'eyktan and the current one is old and has just ordered an attack on the neighbouring clan but has forgotten to say who will lead the wempongu, I don't ahve the authority to say that I will but I can suggest myself to him by saying "eyk wepongut oel ko" and asking him to confirm that I will.

None of those could have been done with a simple "let's" in English and show that ko has a much wider sphere of use (that said, they are a little speculative as they all rely on it also being used for soliciting confirmation).

Also, <iv> does not imply hope, just the possibility that what is being suggested may be contrary to the fact, for example it would be possible to say "oe tayerkup nìsraw", I clearly don't hope that that will happen but I am acknowledging that it is a possibility, in this case one would probably only say it if it were the most probable outcome.

That said, it certainly doesn't have to be the most probably outcome as I could say "txo nga kakrela ketuwong a ta marsì livu tsakrr oel ngati tspìyevang". There, both verbs have <iv> (lu and tspang), but neither is the most likely outcome, it is highly unlikely that you are a blind alien from Mars and it is also implied that it is unlikely that I will kill you (although it is established as a certainty that I would if you were a blind alien from Mars).

So, as always, it's a bit more complicated than it may at first seem.

[omängum fra'uti]

Eh not quite...  "ko" isn't a question.  In your examples of it as a question, you would probably use "kefyak" if you didn't think the answer was going to be no, but not "ko".

Some cases where you might use "ko" would be the same cases where various dialects of English would say things like "eh?" or "ya know?" or "yes?" (Where an answer is not actually expected) among others.

Here's an example (From Frommer, actually) where it is not a question (As I said above it never is) and wouldn't mean "Lets"...

Tsun tutet spivang ko
(It) can kill a person, you know.

When it's used with the an imperative like as in "makto ko!" or "kivä ko!" depending on the context it may or may not be taken the same as "lets".  For example, I'll tell my cats "yivom ko" sometimes - but I'm not going to be eating, I'm saying for them to eat.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that ko was a question, I think I'm misremembering something from the early days, I could have sworn it was usually written with a question mark so I started to do so despite it making no sense.

I'd probably use kefyak as you say, but at the same time I don't think ko would be wrong.

The problem is trying to put this into terms in English. Solicit agreement is arguably not an accurate gloss, arguably "assert truth" or "assume agreement"/"take silence/lack of response as agreement" might be a bit better.

[Tängal]

Well that seems to be tricky. Actually a got lost a little bit. So I think I will leave it for some time to get more of the language and maybe then I will understand it.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out my mistake