Official Na'vi Dictionary

[Kamean]

Can we agree that the old terms (subjective/absolutive,ergative,accusative) have indeed been REPLACED BY new terms (subjective,agentive,patientive) ?

It seems best to stick to the terms Frommer uses.

I agree. In the world of Na'vi, Dr. Frommer is the absolute authority. We should definitely use what he uses in "official" documentation.

Of course.

['Oma Tirea]

So I see "yawne lu" is being shot down as an entry... keep in mind it's used for more than just nga yawne lu oer.  Maybe as a phrase?

...or will this not work at all because it's thought of as "too obvious" and "one should really study first"?

[Toruk Makto]

Suppose we add a bit to the phrase definition so it ends up as:

"I love you, you are beloved to me; note usage of yawne lu as "are beloved", resulting in love as implied vtr."

Or does that make any sense?

[Tirea Aean]

Suppose we add a bit to the phrase definition so it ends up as:

"I love you, you are beloved to me; note usage of yawne lu as "are beloved", resulting in love as implied vtr."

Or does that make any sense?

NOT an implied vtr. because lu is the verb there and it is not vtr.

yawne lu

would never take a patientive noun. only a dative and subjective at most.
____

YEeeeeah Idk about that. I think people will discover what all this is about after a little bit of studying and asking around.

[Toruk Makto]

As you mentioned earlier, this is more a job for a teacher than a dictionary. 

[Tirea Aean]

just my opinion, anyway. if there is significant need for it to be explicitly listed, it can be done.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

We should try and keep the dictionary as standardized as possible in terms of how it is structured. So, although it is interesting and valuable, the discussion concerning yawne lu IMHO does not belong in the definition. I know that there is some work being done on a version of the dictionary that contains usage examples. There, it would be appropriate. But in the main dictionary, the only place where yawne lu should show up is 'useful phrases'.

And a comment on the labeling of verbs. We have a labeling for strictly intransitive, transitive and modal verbs. The antipassive use of transitive verbs is understood as a possible use of a transitive verb. The modal marking is good and useful, as modality is not always obvious. A verb simply marked [v]v[/b] at least to me, is understood to be ambitransitive, with the intransitive use (I think) usually preferred. Truly ditransitive verbs are kind of rare, and they would warrant a special marking, like the proposed vdtr, or if we want to stick to three letter codes vtd, as I don't think a case can exist where a verb can be both ditransitive and modal at the same time. Of course, we might want to run this past K.Pawl, to see if explicit ditransitiveness (new word for the LEP  ) does in fact, exist.

[Tirea Aean]

I see your point for ditransitives such as tìng(most obvious one) kar, peng, pawm, and such as those. kar especially. I have seen "...oeti kar" Many times when I would have expected to see "(tsat) oeru kar" and whatnot.

I think the only reason we have ones that just say V is because Frommer has not specifically revealed the actual transitivity of them, just called them verbs. We are awaiting transitivity data on those still.

On the floor now: SHOULD (currently known) ditransitives be marked and if so, HOW?

[Blue Elf]

I think it could be usefull, vdt mark seems to be good

['Oma Tirea]

I think it could be usefull, vtd mark seems to be good

You probabaly meant vdt.  Fine with me

[Blue Elf]

I think it could be usefull, vtd mark seems to be good

You probabaly meant vdt.  Fine with me

First kxeyey of the day so early?, Yes, I meant vdt, thanks

[Tanri]

On the floor now: SHOULD (currently known) ditransitives be marked and if so, HOW?

Definitely yes, because this is a only way how to distinguish between verbs whose di/ambi/transivity is known, from the verbs about them we don't have any information. All of us actually think for a sec before using some of unmarked verbs, about correctness and logic of intended usage.
To have a confirmed ambitransivity marked in dictionary is a good idea. In czech dictionary, we are already using term "verb ambitransitive".
Shortly, vdt. or vat. sounds good to me. (from linguistic, not financial point of view)

From the other side, i don't see the reason for distinguish even more, between ambitransitives and ditransitives, in terms of

A verb simply marked [v]v[/b] at least to me, is understood to be ambitransitive, with the intransitive use (I think) usually preferred. Truly ditransitive verbs are kind of rare, and they would warrant a special marking, like the proposed vdtr, or if we want to stick to three letter codes vtd, as I don't think a case can exist where a verb can be both ditransitive and modal at the same time. Of course, we might want to run this past K.Pawl, to see if explicit ditransitiveness (new word for the LEP   ) does in fact, exist.

Every ambitransitive verb can be used intransitively or transitively, with some level of preferences on this or that side.
To sort all those verbs by such a statistical parameter, i don't think this is a must.

Tìsung: Tsa-hey! Lu oe skxawng!
Oeru txoa livu, i was completely wrong with this. Another brilliant example of my inability to verify informations, when i think that i know.
Now i see why many people says: Thinking about something, is not the same as knowing it.
ditransitivity != ambitransitivity
Thank you Blue Elf for notice about this.

[Tirea Aean]

okay. ditransitives, which are able to take patientive and dative at the same time, can be marked.

My only fear is, taht these pos markings might become so long and nonstandard, but they are usually translated at the top of the dictionary.

I tihnk vdt. sounds good. but there seems to be overlap in vdt and vtr. to be expected. some will just have to change from vtr. to vtd.

A couple more opinions, and I think we are ready to make a thread somewhere to gather up all the known ditransitives.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I had originally suggested vtd, but vdt is good, too.

I do know that K. Pawl was supposed have released a full list of verb transitivity, and I think that was talked about during the workshop.  So, I am aware that a lot of verbs have not been assigned explicit transitivity yet.  In fact, I am kind of wondering if ambitransitivity isn't the direction K. Pawl is leaning in, for a lot of the 'unmarked' verbs. But if a verb turns out to be ambitransitive, I don't think any marking at all is warranted (beyond v), as it can be used a lot of different ways. And the less different markings we have, the better (read: any markings should convey truly useful information).

[Tirea Aean]

We would then have to just redefine V to mean "ambitransive" instead of "we're still waiting on transitivity info, just kinda wing it for now, youll find out if you're wrong later"

I'm not sure if it makes more sense to think of ALL verbs as EITHER VTR, /OR/ VIN, (or VDT) and VTRs used as VIN is counted as antipassive-like? or to call that V

Ex

Tsu'teyìl teyluti yom. (yom = VTR)
Tsu'tey yolom ro helku. (yom = ambitransitive?? OR -l and object left out due to antipassive-like structure?? )

[Tanri]

Tsu'teyìl teyluti yom. (yom = VTR)
Tsu'tey yolom ro helku. (yom = ambitransitive?? OR -l and object left out due to antipassive-like structure?? )

Very interesting.

The response depends of definition of transitivity:
vtr. - can have direct object OR vtr. - must have direct object?
Intransitivity is without any question, vin. cannot take direct object.

Pxìm oe taron fa tsko, slä tukruri fnan oe nìteng.
Pxìm oel taron fa tsko, slä fnan tukrut oel nìteng.
Na'vi should understand to both sentences, but are they correct too?

A technical note about ditransitives: Infix <eyk> turns transitive verb into ditransitive?
Eytukanìl Neytirir yerikit teykolaron.

There are so many questions...

[Puvomun]

Stumbled over this just now:

mìn: PF v. turn
As fko can turn something e.g. a page, a stone, and even around, should we promote mìn to vtr.?


And this one is cute but I would not know what to use it for:
mìnyu: PF n. turner (derived from mìn turn)

Oe lu mìnyu.
Nga lu PEU??? 

What's a turner?

[Puvomun]

And argh - there is still some ambiguity about sì and ulte going on. Someone insists that I have it wrong, while I know I am right.

sì: PF conj. and (connects two things, can be attached as –sì: for clauses use ulte and)
ulte: PF conj. and (clausal conjunction)

Perhaps an idea to improve these two by adding a bit of example?
I tend to explain sì as "list things, as in this and that" and ulte as "connect two sentences, as in this is a flower, and that is a tree".

[Plumps]

Stumbled over this just now:

mìn: PF v. turn
As fko can turn something e.g. a page, a stone, and even around, should we promote mìn to vtr.?

I don't think this kind of turning is meant, judging from the information we got from the Seatlle meet up. It's a movement like run and swim and therefor I guess that it is vin.

And this one is cute but I would not know what to use it for:
mìnyu: PF n. turner (derived from mìn turn)

Oe lu mìnyu.
Nga lu PEU??? 

What's a turner?

It's a plant

sì: PF conj. and (connects two things, can be attached as –sì: for clauses use ulte and)
ulte: PF conj. and (clausal conjunction)

Perhaps an idea to improve these two by adding a bit of example?

I think the explanations work for themselves. Going over to examples would be a whole new dictionary ...  idea taken

[Tirea Aean]

sì and ulte, people think that each verb has its own clause and use ulte to separate verbs always, but what about when a single subject does two verbs to the same object? I thik that is one clause containing two verbs so I would use sì(clauses separated with blue, lists within clauses identified with red):

[oel {taron }sì{ yom} yerikit.]

but is that possible? I have seen no confirmation on that.

How I see the difference between sì and ulte:

[{Txewì }sì{ Änsìt} tìran ne kelutral] ulte [tsatsenge ((mefol)) run eylanit.]