Difference between revisions of "Canon"

From Learn Na'vi Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Numerals: -iv- fused infixes)
Line 500: Line 500:
:Kìyevame ulte Eywa ngahu,
:Kìyevame ulte Eywa ngahu,
=== Fused -iv- Infixes ===
''Quoted by suomichris, January 30, 2010'' ([http://forum.learnnavi.org/intermediate/another-email-from-frommer/ source])
:''Ngeyä txantsana tìpawmìri ngaru seiyi oe irayo.''
:[txantsan = excellent]
:A number of people have asked about this, so let me explain:
:There's a small class of "fused" infixes that combine the common -iv- subjunctive/dependent verb infix with those that indicate tense and aspect. It goes like this:
:I think you can see what's happening here: the CONSONANT of the tense or aspect infix is shoved into the middle of the -iv- infix--an infix in an infix, if you will.
:With the future subjunctive, there's a slight complication:
:The problem is that although a syllable can end with r, l, or m, it can't end with y (unless it's part of a diphthong, which iy is not). That would violate the phonotactic constraints of Na'vi. So an epenthetic vowel comes to the rescue: -iyev-
:An alternate form of this fused infix has arisen: -ìyev-. As an instance of vowel harmony (rare in Na'vi), the high front tense vowel i has become lax (ì) under the influence of the lax vowel e in the following syllable. Both -iyve- and -ìyev- are acceptable.
:So that's a very long-winded explanation of why Kìyevame means: "May (we) See (each other again) in the future."
:''Sìlpey oe, oeyä tì'eyng law livu ngar!''

Revision as of 12:57, 31 January 2010

The Na'vi language canon is the complete collection of information about the Na'vi language provided by authoritative sources, namely Paul Frommer and the creators of Avatar (James Cameron and Twentieth Century Fox).

The canon comprises two things:

  • words and phrases spoken or written in Na'vi
  • descriptions of the linguistic elements of Na'vi such as orthography, morphology, syntax, and grammar

The Na'vi words and phrases from canonical sources are presented or linked to on the Corpus page (where copyright allows). Documentation, explanation, and analysis of Na'vi linguistics are presented on other Learn Na'vi wiki pages (Phonology, Morphology, Grammar, etc.). This page serves to document the canonical sources themselves.

List of Canonical Sources

The canonical material we have available to date includes:

  • The film Avatar
  • The Activist Survival Guide
  • Paul Frommer's post to Language Log and his later reply to comments there
  • The media interviews Frommer has given (mostly around the release of the movie)
  • Private correspondence between Frommer and people interested in his language
  • The form letter Frommer emailed to his many correspondents in late 2009 and early 2010
  • The out-of-office auto-reply message Frommer set up during the semester break in December 2009
  • A partial page of Na'vi dialog from Avatar used by Sam Worthington ("Jake Sully"), as seen in close-up during a behind-the-scenes video released by Fox
  • "A Message From Paul" - his message to the Na'vi language community on January 21, 2010

Commercial Sources

The film Avatar (IMDB link) contains numerous examples of both human and Na'vi characters speaking in Na'vi. Some of the Na'vi dialog is subtitled in English (or in the local language where Avatar has been released in non-English-speaking countries).

Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora aka "The Activist Survival Guide" or "ASG" (Amazon link, Browsable link from publisher) is an official companion book to the movie. It includes a Na'vi-English word list and two Na'vi songs with English translations. It also includes an account of animal and plant life containing some "Na'vi" words that violate what we know of Na'vi phonetics.

Na'vi Dialog for Jake

From a Fox-authorized video on YouTube, Avatar The Movie James Cameron Avatar The Movie Behind The Scenes Making The Movie 2. There's a brief video close-up of some of Jake's Na'vi dialog, "Na'vi Dialog for Jake - 3-13-2007." The stress accent is marked with the underline. See also this still-frame image from the video. See the Corpus page for a transcription. See also this forum thread for discussion. Since the dialog is Jake's, there is some concern the sentences may not be perfectly grammatical.

Interviews with Paul Frommer

Shortly before and after Avatar's release, Paul Frommer gave interviews to several media outlets in which he discussed the Na'vi language and its use in the film. He provided some examples of the language (written in print interviews, spoken in audio and video interviews). He also explained some of its unusual features and talked generally about how the language was developed and the work he did for the film. As the interviews and media stories were intended for general audiences, they provide little detailed information about Na'vi linguistics.

A complete list of Frommer's media appearances is on the Resources page (Print; Audio and Video).

Paul Frommer's Language Log Post

On December 19, 2009 (the day after Avatar's release) Paul Frommer made a guest post on the linguistics blog Language Log titled "Some highlights of Na’vi". In that post, he provided an extensive but by no means complete description of the Na'vi language covering phonetics and phonology, word classes and morphology, and syntax. The blog post attracted many comments, and on December 21 Frommer posted a reply addressing many of them, providing clarifications and some additional information about the language.

To date, Frommer's post remains the largest single direct source of information about Na'vi linguistics. A great deal of additional information has been learned by analyzing the Corpus, and Frommer has provided additional information in smaller amounts as described elsewhere on this page, but the Language Log post provided the foundation upon which our understanding of Na'vi has been built.

Public Email From Paul Frommer

In late December 2009 and early January 2010, Paul Frommer began replying to his many email correspondents with a form letter, reproduced here from this post on the Learn Na'vi forum:

Kaltxì, and thanks for your interest in Na’vi.

The enthusiastic response to the language has been very gratifying. I wish I could answer all your e-mails personally, but the volume has been staggering, so I hope you’ll forgive this generic message.

Irayo to everyone who thanked me for the effort and wished me well. It’s been a privilege to be involved in something as extraordinary as “Avatar,” and I couldn’t be happier that people feel my contribution added to the film.

For those who have expressed interest in learning the language, thank you! The way Na’vi will live and grow is for enthusiasts like yourselves to take it up and expand it beyond its present boundaries. I hope that not too long from now there will be learning tools available to make that possible. Film consultants like me, however, don’t own the rights to the products or services we provide, so I can’t put out any such materials on my own—they’ll have to be in cooperation with the people who brought you “Avatar.” We’ve already begun thinking about that, and I hope that some official form of “Learn Na’vi!” will soon be available to the public.

In the meantime, a number of people have put up unofficial web sites talking about various aspects of Na’vi. Some of those are quite good, others are only speculative, and still others are highly inaccurate. The Wikipedia article on Na’vi, although not a complete description of the language, is well done and reliable.

Kìyevame ulte Eywa ngahu. See you again, and may Eywa be with you.

Paul Frommer

Around the same time period, during semester break at the University of Southern California where he teaches, correspondents emailing Frommer received an out-of-office auto-reply message which included the following sign-off:

Ayftozä lefpom ayngaru nìwotx! Happy Holidays to You All!

A Message From Paul

On January 20, Paul Frommer sent a message to the Na'vi language community expressing his appreciation for the community's interest in the language. The message was sent as Na'vi text, English text, and audio of Frommer speaking the message in Na'vi. Frommer also provided a version of the text marked for stress.

To date, this message is the largest single authoritative example of written and spoken Na'vi (other than the film dialog, for which there are no canonical Na'vi transcriptions). Consisting of fourteen sentences, many of them lengthy and complex, the message contained previously unseen grammatical constructs and added many new words to the Na'vi lexicon. Frommer signed the message "Your friend and teacher, Paul."

The message can be read and heard in its entirety at the site masempul.org. The stress-marked version is on the Corpus page at A Message From Paul.

Private Correspondence With Paul Frommer

Many people interested in learning more about Na'vi have sent questions to Paul Frommer. Frommer is not always able to reply, but he has on several occasions given answers which have provided greater insight into the language. Some of those answers have been shared with the Na'vi language community; those answers are documented here.

Note: communication between Dr. Frommer and his correspondents is inherently private. How much of that communication to share, and whether to share anything at all, is a personal decision. No one should ever feel obligated to share anything, and no one should ever expect or demand that others do so.

Note also: Dr. Frommer is a party in these communications, and his privacy must be respected as well. If you have received something from Dr. Frommer and are considering sharing it with the community, do not do so until you are confident that he has no objections.

If you have new information from Dr. Frommer about the Na'vi language that has not been published elsewhere, and you are comfortable sharing it, and you are certain that he does not mind you doing so, then (and only then) please consider making it available to the Na'vi community so that it can become part of the canon and improve everyone's knowledge.

If you do publish your correspondence, please only publish the parts that are directly related to the Na'vi language, such as new words and phrases or new grammatical rules. Post excerpts only. Leave out anything that might be a personal matter for either you or Dr. Frommer. When possible, post direct quotations from Dr. Frommer so that we can all see what his exact words and intentions are. When you are not comfortable giving direct quotes, a summary or paraphrase is still valuable and welcome, but take care to not present your own interpretation as his words.

Extracts from various emails

Added by roger. Dates are date of answer from Frommer

Dec 15
Kaltxì ngaru.
Dec 18

on monosyllabic verbs

And yes, you can see where längu comes from. Lu, as you know, is ‘to be.’ So you have inflected forms like lolu, leru, layu, etc. Those are all with 1st position infixes. Of course you can also have forms like lereiu, lolängu, etc.
One thing I didn’t mention in the post is that whatever vowel receives stress in the root retains that stress in the inflected forms. So all of these forms of lu are stressed on the last syllable.
Dec 21
Glad you liked the x-digraphs. I'm not thrilled about digraphs in general (as I've indicated, I really wanted to use c instead of ts, as Pinyin does, and g instead of ng, as in Pago Pago), but using them here seemed to be the best choice. Since the apostrophe already meant a glottal stop, trying to use it for the ejectives as well would have resulted in ambiguities: would a sequence like hap'a indicate an ejective (i.e., ha-pxa) or a p closing one syllable followed by a glottal stop opening another (hap-'a)? They're not the same thing!
Dec 27

on why le-adjectives don't take a, and on ergative case with futa

The one time you don't need to use the adjectival a is with le- adjectives that follow the noun. (Having two consecutive markers in a row relating to adjectives seemed redundant. Also, I bet the a + le- combination would tend to decay over time on phonological grounds.) It's not wrong to put in the a in such cases, but it can be optionally omitted, and usually is.
If a le- adjective precedes its noun, however, you need the a.
ayftxozä lefpom
ayftxozä alefpom
*lefpom ayftxozä
lefpoma ayftxozä
As for futa and oel:
Futa is a contraction of fì'ut a. Fì'u means 'this thing, object, idea, fact, abstraction.' Here it has the objective (or "patientive") marker t.
The idea is that fpìl 'think' is transitive: you think SOMETHING, which is a thought. (It's transitive in the same way that "create" is transitive: you bring something, the object created, into being.) The a is just the usual "modifying a," as in the adjective examples above.
So the sense is, "I thought this thing, (namely) that . . . " And therefore oel is in the agentive or ergative case, while fì'ut is in the objective or patientive case.
Dec 28

I also take it that "N le-ADJ lu" is ambiguous between attributive adj. w existential vb and predicative adj. w copula. ... I assume <arm> is <a<er>m> PST.IMPV

Right. I don't think that's a problem, but if need be, a speaker could disambiguate by including the a (optional here) for the attributive case and postposing the adjective after the copula for the predicative case.

Are the esses in slu and sìltsan related?

As for slu/lu, I haven't developed anything like a consistent s-derivation. (I could think about that, though.) The sìltsan/nìltsan pair isn't related—nìltsan is simply a development of *nìsìltsan, which I think could be natural. I wanted to avoid a 3-syllable word for 'well'!
Good guesses about -arm- and -iv-. ;-)
Dec 31

In Tsakrr nga Na'viru yomtìyìng "then you will feed the People", shouldn't nga be in the ergative?

You'd think the verb is transitive, which would require the ergative case. But yomtìyìng 'feed' is from yomtìng, a compound: yom 'eat' + tìng 'give.' So there's no DO, and the verb is thought of intransitively, along the lines of 'engage in eat-giving.' Na'viru, as you know, is in the dative. So the whole thing is rather like, "Then you will engage in (or do) eat-giving to/for the people." There's a whole class of verbs that work on a similar principle.
To say "you feed the people meat," you need a different structure. It would probably just be with the verb tìng, where 'you' is ergative/agentive, 'meat' objective/patientive, and 'the people' dative.
A bit odd, perhaps, but I think it works.
Mipa Zìsìt Lefpom Ngaru!
Dec 31, on the SG
You're quite right that the words you've listed below are not at all in keeping with Na'vi phonology. I've never seen them before.
As for aylaberu, the b should be an h.
Jan 07
Ngaru irayo seiyi oe nìmun.
Jan 09
There's no -ev- infix. The line from the film "Let her walk among us . . ." is:
Tivìran po ayoekip . . .
(Walk: tìran. The infix -iv- is subjunctive, here an "optative." Po is used for he/she unless it's desirable to make a gender distinction--e.g. to avoid ambiguity in discourse.)
About the movie dialog: Keep in mind that there's variation in all languages. Some of it is due to dialectal differences, some to performance errors, some to fast-speech phenomena . . . In other words, it's not necessarily the case that everything you hear in the movie theater prefectly represents standard, canonical Na'vi. Also, remember that Jake, Grace, and Norm speak Na'vi as a second language! It would be especially unrealistic to expect them to be perfect.
As for ko, I don't know any Japanese but I did have in mind Mandarin ba, a sentence-final particle glossed by Li and Thompson as "solicit agreement." Typical translations of ba are: "Don't you think so?" "Wouldn't you agree?" "Let's . . ." "Why don't you . . ." "I'll do X, OK?" I've used ko for all such things, maybe a bit more widely than ba.
Jan 19
Sìpawmìri oe ngaru seiyi irayo.
Jan 20

Why is there no overt SBRD w modals?

That's how I've been handling want, can, and must: via a simple, shorter structure, where the subject in the main clause is considered intransitive, and there's no overt subject in the subordinate clause if they're identical:
Oe new kivä. 'I want to go.'
Oe tsun kivä. 'I can go.'
Oe zene kivä. 'I can go.'
(Different word orders are possible in all of these, of course: Zene oe kivä, etc.)
So in these cases, the -iv- form of the verb functions somewhat like an infinitive. (But never like a gerund!)
You can also use the longer form:
Oel new futa (oe) kivä.
But that's less common.
Jan 20
Oh, btw, for pxeeveng etc. . . . Yeah, you're right. It should contract to pxeveng. (Likewise for *meeveng > meveng.) I've gone back and forth on the contraction question when two identical vowels naturally come together as they do here. I should be consistent.
Jan 20

So, what if the verb after the modal is transitive?

If the 2nd verb has the same subject as the first, it's pretty straightforward:
Oe new yivom teylut. 'I want to eat teylu.'
(Back in the dark ages when I had my first syntax courses, that would have been termed an instance of equi-NP deletion.)

[section on when the subject differs removed for the time being]

Jan 21

Do we get that long form w other modals?

No, with tsun and zene, the plain subjunctive is the only possibility.
Jan 20,

on our proofreading of his message

Eylanur oeyä Kwami sì Prrton . . .
Ma Kwami:
Tìsteftxaw ngeyä flolä nìltsan! [ flä = 'succeed' ]
Just a couple of things to adjust:
yawn is not actually the verb 'love.' Rather, 'yawne means 'beloved.' (For the noun, the e has dropped. Happens a lot.) So . . . how would you say 'I love you?' :-)
'Work' needs some explanation, which I'll provide when I have a bit more time. Hint: kan is the verb meaning 'aim.'
'Best' is simply swey.
Rule is koren. If it were horen, then there would be no short form for the plural—you'd have to say ayhoren.
Ma Prrton:
'Ngal oeyä 'upxaret aysuteru fpole' a fì'uri, ngaru irayo seiyi oe nìtxan!
(Alternately: Furia ngal . . . fpole', ngaru . . . )
[I'm debating whether standard punctuation should include the comma.]
Jan 20
Eywa'evengä is OK. Eywa'eveng = Pandora, lit. 'child of Eywa.' Jim's coinage, not mine. (He has the right!) But it works as a compound.
Jan 21

on our guesses for 'I love you'

Re "love": The "indirect" way is correct.
I've been playing around with word orders to come up with the most euphonious version. For me, it's:
Nga yawne lu oer.
Five syllables (sentence stress on YAWN, of course), not too long . . . sounds good, I think. The laudatory infix (as someone has dubbed it) -ie- is possible but not necessary, and I've been omitting it here. "Love" itself is positive enough that it's probably redundant, and all other things being equal, shorter is better.
As for the sentence with tìyawn si, yes, that might mean something different. I'll have to think about it!
OK, here's a grammatical point I haven't yet talked about explicitly:
"Si constructions" have a special syntax. They're considered intransitive--a bit strange, perhaps, but reasonable, I think. That is, "X si" is thought of as "engage in the X-activity," an intransitive concept. What would normally be considered the object is then in the dative, along the lines of, "engage in the X-activity to/for Y."
So rather than *Oel ngati tìyawn si," we have Oe ngaru tìyawn si.
The literal, pidgen-English translation would be something like "I do loving to/for you."
As I said, I'll to think about the implications of that!
BTW, [...] I may have forgotten to mention this in the LL post, but the "pseudo-vowels" rr and ll only exist in open syllables. (If you see I've violated that anywhere, please let me know . . . it's not impossible.) [...] Lu ngeyä tìftxey!
Jan 21

But the stress shift in oe would result in the consonant clusters ?/mw/ and ?/pxw/ in the pronouns.

No new C-clusters! The phonotactics are [in]violable.
In the dual and trial, the stress on the oe element does not shift. So pxoengaru has 4 syllables.
In the 1st pers. dual inclusive, however, the problem doesn't arise, because there's no me- prefix. It's just "you (sg.) and me," i.e. naturally dual, so you don't need the marker. The forms are simply oeng (N.B.: no -a), oengal, oengat(i), etc.
Jan 21

How about Plltxe fko san X fyape nìNa'vi? or X sìk nìNa'vi plltxe fxo fyape? for "How do you say X in Na'vi?"

There's an easier and more concise way:
X nìNa'vi slu upe?
(As you know, slu = 'become')
It's an example of a neat structure I adapted from Persian:
X be-faarsi chi mishe? X in-Persian what becomes?
BTW, I've been thinking of san . . . sìk as correlatives, always occurring together. The only exception is if you're quoting someone and you end with material still in the quote. Then you don't have to say "unquote."

I'm not following.

Well, let's see . . .
Suppose the sentence is, "Eytukan said he would go, but I don't believe him."
Everything converts to direct speech, so it would be:
Poltxe Eytukan san oe kayä sìk, slä oel pot ke spaw.
(Note: *pollltxe > poltxe )
But if it's simply "Eytukan said he would go," and you end your speech turn there, then it's not necessary to have the concluding sìk—it's "understood."

Ah, okay. So "he said X" would use just san, "X he said" would use just sìk, right?

Yes, "He said X" would just use san if you ended there and didn't continue.
As for whether "X he said" would only use sìk and omit the initial san . . . I think that depends.
Suppose in a conversation in English you said the following:
(1) "I'm planning to sell everything I have and move to Nepal, where I'm going to take up mountain climbing and flower arranging," he said.
Since your listeners can't see the quotation marks, would it be clear to them from the start that you're talking about someone else's plans, not your own? It probably depends heavily on the context. Come to think of it, though, (1) would be very unnatural in conversation, wouldn't it? You see that structure in written material all the time, but people don't speak that way. So "X he said" questions might be rare in discourse.

And it looks like only direct speech is allowed?


In 'how do you say', was 'upe rather than upe a typo?

Not a typo, a goof! It is of course 'upe, with stress on the first syllable. Thanks for the catch.
The other form, as you know, is peu, without the glottal stop, stress on the second.
So you can also have:
X nìNa'vi slu peu?
Either one is fine.
Jan 27

on making a mistake:

Oel foru fìaylì'ut tolìng a krr, kxawm oe harmahängaw.
[hahaw = sleep, stress on 1st]
[-arm- is one of the fused infixes that combine tense and aspect.]
Irayo nìmun.

Pronunciation of a

Quoted by Taronyu, January 25, 2010 (source).

In your Language Log, you show in the trapezium that [a] is the low back vowel, in contrast to [æ]. Did you mean to say [ɑ]? I am aware that you use an old American system.
I meant [a], a low central vowel; essentially the corresponding vowel in Spanish and Italian, or in the standard American pronunciation of 'hot.' So you're right: phonetically it's not really back.


Quoted by Taronyu, January 25, 2010 (source).

Is transitivity lexically marked: you've shown that 'promise' is ditransitive in the guide, but what about the other words? Will you be showing us how to do this soon?

Well, I've been pretty much leaving it up to the semantics to determine what's transitive and what's not, when it's clear. "Sleep" is clearly intransitive, for example; "kill" is clearly transitive. So I don't need to annotate those in the lexicon. For verbs like 'begin,' however, you have to be told which one you're talking about. So for those, I've indicated the type in the complete glossary. Until that's published, let me know what's not obvious and I'll get back to you.

Monosyllabic Stress

Quoted by Taronyu, January 25, 2010 (source).

I've noticed in a shot of a script that you stress monosyllabic words when they have an inflection (and therefore are polysyllabic), but not otherwise. Should all monosyllabic words be stressed normally?
Yes indeed. I underlined the stressed syllables in polysyllabic words for the actors, so they could pronounce their lines correctly. I've done that in the glossary too for all polysyllabic words.
The rule for inflected verbs is that whatever vowel is stressed in the root keeps its stress in the inflected form. So for example, the root for hunt, as you know, is taron, stress on the first syllable. So all the inflected forms retain stress on the original a of the root: tivaron, tolaron, tayarängon, etc. Cf. pängkxo "chat, converse," where the stress on the ultima. The stress stays there in the inflected forms: pivängkxo, polängkxo, payängkxängo.

sä- Prefix

Quoted by Taronyu, January 25, 2010 (source).

Is sänume indicative of a - nomilinalizer to show the instrument of the verb?
The - prefix is a bit of a loose end. So far I only have one example of it in the lexicon: nume "learn" vs. sänume "teaching, instruction." You're right: I was thinking of it as something like an instrumental affix: instruction is the thing BY MEANS OF WHICH you learn. On that basis, since mun'i is the verb "cut," sämun'i could be a word for a general cutting instrument. I'll need to think more about that, however, since I'm not sure these two cases are comparable. In the second case, you have a concrete instrument, which must be present in order to implement the verb. With nume, though, you can learn by other means than teaching: from experience, from trial and error, etc. So should sänume refer to any means whatsoever of learning something? I'm not sure yet. Thanks for the question!

Verb Phrases as Objects

Quoted by Taronyu, January 25, 2010 (source).

If a verb is understood to be transitive (depending on your answer above), when the direct object is replaced by a verb phrase, is the subject still marked as ergative? Essentially, which is more correct: Oe new pivlltxe or Oel new pivlltxe?

Good question.
First note that for "can" and "must," the subject is considered intransitive:
Oe tsun kivä. 'I can go.' (NOT *Oel tsun kivä.)
Oe zene kivä. 'I must go.' (NOT *Oel zene kivä.)
"Want" MAY follow the same pattern:
Oe new kivä. (That is, it patterns like a modal.)
But since want, unlike can and must, is a transitive verb, there's an alternate pattern:
Oel new futa (= fì'ut a) kivä.
And you also have sentences like:
Oel new futa Taronyu kivä. "I want Taronyu to go."
So in the sentences you asked about, Oe new pivlltxe is fine. In one with oel, though, insert futa.

Later in the same message:

BTW, let's take a look at your sentence again:
(1) Oel new pivlltxe nìNa'vi mì oeyä letrra tìrey, (2) slä oel tsun pivey (3) trrit a ngat taying (oe new tìying!) ayoe nì'ul aylì'u!
(1) and (2) are virtually perfect: just change oel to oe in both cases. I like letrr for daily! I'll add that to the glossary, with RL in the Source column. :-)
(3), though, needs a little help. Are you awaiting "the day that you will give us more words?" If so, the verb for "give" is tìng, so it should be:
trrit a nga tayìng (or, hopefully, tìyìng) ayoer(u) aylì'ut nì'ul.
But if I've misinterpreted you, please let me know.
Hope that helps!

In a follow-up message:

At the end of my previous e-mail:
Let's make that--
trrit a NGAL tayìng (or, hopefully, tìyìng) ayoer(u) aylì'ut nì'ul.
Kxeyeyri tsap'alute sengi oe. [kxeyey = mistake, error]

Auxilary verb SI

Quoted by omängum fra'uti, January 28, 2010

Can "si" be a verb on its own, or is it always paired with something else?
Your intuitions are right. Si is only an auxiliary verb--it needs to be paired with something else. If you ant the main verb 'make,' for example, you need a different lexical item, like txula (stress on 1st) 'build, construct' or ngop 'create.'
About the only time si stands alone is when the non-verbal element has already been mentioned and is understood from the discourse:
--Nga tsap'alute soli srak?
(Or: Srane, soli.)

Dative + copula possessive

Quoted by omängum fra'uti, January 28, 2010

We have seen examples of the dative and copula used for possession of abstract concepts and states, can it be used for physical possession too?
This can definitely indicate physical possession. In fact, that's the only way to express the concept of "having" in Na'vi--there's no verb 'have.'
But contrary to the general principle of flexible word order, "have" constructions usually begin with the verb. So "I have an ikran" is: Lu oeru ikran. Here, lu has the force of 'there is.'
BTW, the inspiration for this was Hebrew, which does something similar: Yesh li sefer (there-is to-me book), i.e. I have a book. The difference is that Hebrew has no copula in the present tense, so it needs a special word for there-is/are. Na'vi just uses the ordinary copula for this construction.

Krr: noun vs adverb

Quoted by omängum fra'uti, January 28, 2010

The uses of "krr" we have seen seem to use it as a temporal adjunct more than a noun, is this a correct analysis?
Right again. Krr is a noun, but it can also be used adverbially. So tsakrr isn't just 'that time'; it's also (and more commonly) 'AT that time' or 'then.' Likewise kawkrr 'never' and frakrr 'always' are commonly used as time adverbials.
If you add a modifying clause to adverbial krr, linked of course with a, you get a "when" clause:
Ngeyä Tireaioang zola'u a krr, law layu ngaru. 'When your Spirit Animal comes, you will know.'
(Lit.: At the time that your Spirit Animal has come, it will be clear to you.)


Quoted by omängum fra'uti, January 28, 2010

How do you express causality?
Longish story, which I'll tell another time. (There's a causative infix . . . )

Vocabulary and <iyev>

Added by wm, Email to suomichris, (posted January 30, 2010).

frrfen (stress on 1st) = visit (transitive verb)
Cf. frrtu = guest
teri (stress on 2nd) = about, concerning (ADP- . . . that is, an adposition that doesn't trigger lenition)
letsunslu = possible

The -iyev- infix, which I think you asked about before, is a "fused" form combining tense and subjunctive mood. This one is a future subjunctive.


Quoted by Nayumeie, January 30, 2010 (source)

Kaltxì ma oeyä 'eylan Nayumeie,
Ngeyä pxesìpawmìri ngaru seiyi oe irayo.
'Awa tìpawmìri 'iveyng oe set; aylari zusawkrr 'ayeyng.
[zusawkrr = future; in the future]

I have a nice complete chart, but it wouldn't be cool if I simply attached it, as I'm sure you understand. Let me convey the essence, however, in a different form.

The system, as you know, is octal:

'aw, mune, pxey, tsìng, mrr, pukap, kinä, vol
volaw, vomun, vopey, vosìng, vomrr, vofu, vohin, mevol
mevolaw, mevomun, . . ., pxevol
pxevolaw, pxevomun, . . ., tsìvol
zam ( = 64, or 100 octal)
vozam ( = 512, or 1000 octal)
zazam ( = 4096, or 10000 octal)

First line above: In disyllables, stress is on the 1st.
Second line above: In disyllables, stress is on the 2nd, except for mevol.
Third line: Stress on the final syllables, except for pxevol.

That should be enough for you to figure out the rest.
Kìyevame ulte Eywa ngahu,

Fused -iv- Infixes

Quoted by suomichris, January 30, 2010 (source)

Ngeyä txantsana tìpawmìri ngaru seiyi oe irayo.
[txantsan = excellent]
A number of people have asked about this, so let me explain:
There's a small class of "fused" infixes that combine the common -iv- subjunctive/dependent verb infix with those that indicate tense and aspect. It goes like this:
I think you can see what's happening here: the CONSONANT of the tense or aspect infix is shoved into the middle of the -iv- infix--an infix in an infix, if you will.
With the future subjunctive, there's a slight complication:
The problem is that although a syllable can end with r, l, or m, it can't end with y (unless it's part of a diphthong, which iy is not). That would violate the phonotactic constraints of Na'vi. So an epenthetic vowel comes to the rescue: -iyev-
An alternate form of this fused infix has arisen: -ìyev-. As an instance of vowel harmony (rare in Na'vi), the high front tense vowel i has become lax (ì) under the influence of the lax vowel e in the following syllable. Both -iyve- and -ìyev- are acceptable.
So that's a very long-winded explanation of why Kìyevame means: "May (we) See (each other again) in the future."
Sìlpey oe, oeyä tì'eyng law livu ngar!