recursal/Fanatic-Fandom huggingface dataset:
2.4

## Overview

Na’vi in general follows the spelling, punctuation and capitalization habits of English, but there are a few differences.

## 2.4.1 - Proper Names

When taking lexical prefixes (5.1), proper names retain their original capitalization, as in **lì’fya leNa’vi**.

## 2.4.2 - Quotation

Direct quotes are not punctuated with quotation marks in Na’vi. Instead it relies on the quotation particles **san…sìk** (6.21).

## 2.4.3 - Etymological Spelling

In addition to the occasional spelling of nasals to reflect etymology (2.3.5), there are a few grammatical processes which result in spelling that reflects the grammar more than the pronunciation.

### **2.4.3.1**

The first person pronoun root **oe**, though pronounced **we** when taking a suffix, retains the original spelling (3.2.1.1).

### **2.4.3.2**

Before words starting with **y** the plural prefix **ay+** is unchanged, **ayyerik**.

## 2.4.4 - Attributive Phrase Hyphenation

Certain short attributive phrases are written with hyphens joining the elements.

### **2.4.4.1**

Attributive phrases of color using **na** like are hyphenated, **fìsyulang aean-na-ta’leng** *this skin-blue flower* (6.18.3.1).

### **2.4.4.2**

Participles of **si** construction verbs are also hyphenated, **srung-susia tute** *a helping person* (6.9.1.2).

1. ↑ Ayyerik
Use of the Subjunctive after Txo

Original correspondence text:

> Fì’upxareri irayo! (Ay)ngeyä faysìpawm kosman leiu nìngay.
>
>
> For now, let me answer your first question about txo. I’ll address the other ones later, perhaps in a blog post. (And I’ll include this answer as well.)
>
>
> Your observation that the verb in the txo part of a txo . . . (tsakrr) sentence can either be subjunctive (with -iv-) or indicative (without it) is correct. The difference is meaningful.
>
>
> Sometimes—probably most of the time—when we say “if,” we’re speculating: something might or might not be true; we don’t know. For example,
>
>
> 1. Txo nga ngeyn 'ivefu, tsurokx.
>
>
> Here, I don’t know whether you’re tired or not. You’ve been working hard, so you might well be. If in fact you are tired (which only you can know), then you should rest. Because I’m speculating, I use livu.
>
>
> In some cases, however, “if” really means “given the fact that” or “since.” For example,
>
>
> 2. Txo nga ngeyn 'efu, tsurokx.
>
>
> Here, I’ve heard you sigh and say, “I’m so exhausted.” So I know you’re tired. What I’m telling you is, “Given the fact that you’re tired, you should rest.” That’s why it’s lu and not livu.
>
>
> Because the subjunctive is almost dead in Modern English, “if” sentences in English are more ambiguous than in Na’vi. When I say, “If you’re going to the store, pick me up some toothpaste,” it’s not clear whether or not I know you are in fact planning to go to the store. I might be speculating, or I might have heard you say you’re going, in which case “if” here really means “since.”
>
>
> That being said, there are gray areas, and it’s not always clear in Na’vi which kind of txo it is. In practice, the rules are somewhat flexible, and I probably haven’t always been consistent myself. But the basic distinction still holds.
>
>
> Btw, your email has prompted me to come up with several new vocabulary items! More soon. 😊
>
>
>
> ta P.
>
>

*Originally received on January 14th, 2022*
Little Confirmation About the Patientive with -ey, niä and tawng

Original question text:

> Since there has been a bit of confusion lately about the use of the patientive ending with the diphthong ey, and I had a few official examples from back in the day in mind, I asked Karyu Pawl about it. To summarize, at some point it has been stated that the patientive on -ey is -eyt or -eyti; \*-eyit has been deemed incorrect. I remembered (and indeed there were) 2 examples where KP used -eyit in the past and I wanted to make him aware of that. He answered and allowed me to relay that to the community (although he wants to include it in an upcoming blog post).
>
>
> I also took the opportunity and asked him about two verbs that were unclear to me:
>
>
> I came across **tawng** which is given as ‘duck or dive’ in the dictionary. Since we don’t have any examples of it, I am a bit unclear about its meaning.
>
>
> Is it ‘dive’ in the sense of what you do before you swim? Or is it strictly the action of throwing yourself/jumping to the ground?
>
>
>
> Btw, what’s the difference between **fyep** and **niä** exactly?
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> About your "**kifkeyit**" question: I regard that today as an error. Or maybe it was "Early Na'vi" that has since evolved into a more uniform standard. Or maybe it was simply a typo. Yeah, that's it: a typo! :blush: Thanks for the heads up about that handout for the Na'vi class. I'll go back and change it in my file. I'm glad there were only two such instances on record.
>
>
> **Tawng**: Your first guess is correct. It refers to jumping into water. It could be used for jumping into water from the outside, as Olympic divers do off a diving board, or it could also be used when you're already swimming in the water and want to dive down deeper. A typical phrase would be, "**tawng nemfa pay**."
>
>
>
> The difference between **fyep** and **niä** is that **fyep** is more static, while **niä** is more dynamic. That is to say, if I'm grasping or holding something steadily, it's **fyep**. But if something comes along and I reach out and suddenly grab it, it's **niä**.
>
>

*Originally received on January 29th, 2021*
Tsun and Making Requests

Original question text:

> A question came up about whether "**tsun**" can be used to ask someone else to do something. I found a statement the Canon from you about **tsun** that says it will work for both "can" and "may", but does this include situations where the speaker is asking whether someone may do something for them? (For example; "can you give me this book?")
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> I don't see why tsun can't be used to ask someone to do something. For example:
>
>
> **Nga tsun oer srung sivi srak?**
>
>
> **Srake tsun nga fìpukit tivìng oeru?**
>
>
> Those seem fine to me.
>
>
> I haven't checked to see how a wide variety of other languages treat this, but it's natural for the word meaning "can" to assume the role of a request in many contexts. This would be a strange conversation:
>
>
> A. It's hot in here. Can you open the window?
>
>
> B: Yes.
>
>
> [Some time elapses. Nothing happens.]
>
>
> A. Er . . . I asked you to open the window.
>
>
> B. No you didn't. You asked if I had the ability to open the window, and I answered yes. You didn't request that I do it.
>
>
>
> I think you'd agree that B is being a jerk. In this situation there's no reason A would want to question B's ability; that's obvious. It was simply a conversational way of asking him to do something, somewhat less direct than "Please open the window." In comparable cases I think it would work the same in Na'vi.
>
>

*Originally received on April 15th, 2020*
Transitivity Clarification on all Remaining "v." Verbs

Original Correspondence:

> 'ong - vin.
>
>
> fkarut - vtr.
>
>
> kämakto - vin.
>
>
> mun'i - vtr.
>
>
> rol - vin. \*
>
>
> tireapängkxo - vin.
>
>
> virä - vin.
>
>
> latsi - vin.
>
>
> pate - vin.
>
>
> salew - vin.
>
>
> spä - vin.
>
>
> tsä' - vin.
>
>
> tuvon - vin.
>
>
>
> Still thinking about rol . . .
>
>

*Originally received on December 28th, 2021*
2.2

## Overview

Certain grammatical processes cause changes in the first consonant of a word. This change is called “lenition.” Only eight consonants undergo lenition.

## 2.2.1 - Glottal Stop

The glottal stop is not lenited when it is followed by a pseudovowel (**mì ’Rrta** not **\*mì Rrta**).

## 2.2.2 - Adpositions

A few adpositions cause lenition when they precede a word: **fpi**, **ìlä**, **mì**, **nuä**, **ro**, **sko**, **sre** (and derived **lisre** and **pxisre**), **wä**. When suffixed they do not cause lenition in either the word they are attached to or to the following word.

## 2.2.3 - Number Prefixes

Prefixes which cause lenition are indicated with a plus sign, rather than the usual dash, as in **ay+**, the leniting plural prefix.

## 2.2.4 - Question Prenoun

When used as a prefix, the question prenoun **pe+** causes lenition (3.3.3), as in **pehem** *what (action)?* from **kem** *action*, *activity*.

## 2.2.5 - Numbers

Suffixed, dependent forms of the numbers are lenited (4.1.3), as in **vopey** *eleven (8+3)*, but **pxey** *three*.

## 2.2.6 - Proper Nouns

Proper nouns still undergo lenition. **oe kelku si mì Helutral** *I live in Hometree*

## 2.2.7 - Reef Na'vi

Although the ejectives in Reef Na'vi surface as voiced stops at the start of a word, the rules of lenition still apply as in Forest Na'vi. That is, though **txon** *night* is pronounced as **don** in Reef Na'vi, the lenited form is still **ton**.
Kaltxì is Not a Noun

Original question text:

> I recently emailed Karyu Pawl with several questions concerning describing the noun-component of si-verbs. While the answers to those questions may come in time, there was this definitive bit of information provided:
> Original Question: Is **kaltxì** a valid noun for "a greeting"? **kaltxì si** is the only example of a si-verb where there is no corresponding noun or adjective. We all know **kaltxì** functions as an interjection, in the same way that **irayo** functions as an interjection, however **irayo** is also an attested noun for thanks/a thanking [which forms **irayo si**], where **kaltxì** is not.
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> For now, though, I’ll just say that **kaltxì** can’t be used as the noun for ‘greeting.’ We need a different word for that. (I’ll add it to my list. )
>
>

*Originally received on January 7th, 2020*
Little Confirmation on "teach" and "insult"

Original question text:

> I was curious about two examples that can be found on the movie line page and this little ‘pseudo canon’ example, but never made it to the dictionary, i.e. **sänume si** and **zoplo si**. I asked Paul about it and he responded.
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> As for the canonical examples for **sänume si** and **zoplo si**, the one for **sänume si** is totally accurate. The example for **zoplo si** needs a slight adjustment. It's just:
>
>
> . . . **fte po kelkur zoplo sivi sìk**.
>
>
>
> I didn't have the fì- on **kelkur**, and there's no **ke** before the verb. The original English that I had to translate into Na'vi was: "I have said no dreamwalker will come here to offend our home!" Your Na'vi makes sense, of course, but from a slightly different angle: "No dreamwalker will come here, so as not to offend our home!" Although now I guess that should be **fteke**, right?
>
>

*Originally received on December 15th, 2015*
Numbers and "Ow"

>
>
> I liked the hierarchy you mentioned in a previous email:
>
>
> A: **Polpxaya swizawti ngal new?**
>
>
> With a few possible answers in order of formality:
>
>
> B (formal): **Tìng oeru mrra pumti**
>
>
> B: **Tìng pumit amrr**
>
>
> B: **pumit amrr**
>
>
> B (clipped/military): **mrr**
>
>
> That's pretty much what I would come up with myself. (Of course, you could start with the pedantic "**Tìng oeru swizawti amrr**," where you don't pronominalize but simply repeat the noun. I'd need to think about the circumstances where that's appropriate. Maybe if someone asked you how many arrows you want, but it turns you you need some bows as well: "**Tìng oeru swizawti amrr sì tskoti atsìng kop**.")
>
>
> Now **pum** is an all-purpose pronominalizer that can be used for inanimates, animates, and even people--any repeated noun. So this is perfectly possible:
>
>
> A. **Polpxaya taronyu kelku si tsatsraymì?**
>
>
> B. **Pum amevol.**
>
>
> However, it's more elegant to use a more specialized term when possible, one that represents the class of the object(s) under discussion. In the case of **taronyu**, the class is simply **tute**. So an alternative form of the dialog is:
>
>
> A. **Polpxaya taronyu kelku si tsatsraymì?**
>
>
> B. **Tute amevol.**
>
>
> Some other examples of class words used in place of **pum**:
>
>
> A. **Äo tsautral lu polpxaya loreyu?**
>
>
> B. **Lu 'ewll apukap.**
>
>
> A. **Polpxaya ikranti ngal tse'a?**
>
>
> B. **Pxeioangit.**
>
>
> A. **Lu polpxaya vozampasukut** [a kind of tree] **a rofa tsakilvan?**
>
>
> B. **Lu utral avolaw.**
>
>
>
> I don't know how many such class words we'd be able to come up with, but it could be interesting to think about.
>
>

>
>
> > I was also curious on what you had come up with regarding an interjection for "ouch" or "ow."
> >
> >
>
> I think a good candidate would be **'Ak**.   It's one syllable and sharp-sounding, especially with the unreleased k. I can hear myself coming out with that spontaneously if I stubbed my toe or banged my head.
> **Sunu ngar srak?**
>
>

*Originally received on May 30th, 2020*
Etymology of the word "Ketuwong"

Original question text:

> **Kaltxì ma Karyu Pawl!**
>
>
> **Sìlpey oe tsnì ngaru fpom livu.**
>
>
>
> **Lu tìpawm ayoeru alu oeyä eylan sì oe. Lì'uri alu ketuwong, pesim lu fìlì'ur? Fpìl ayoel futa zama'atsu a "ke awnga", "ke tute awngeyä" fu "ke 'awa tute ayoengeyä" slä ke omum. Ayoeri fì'u eltur tìtxen si. Ke zene 'iveyng nìNa'vi txo ke nivew nga. Tì'eyngìri ngeyä pasyey ayoe.**
>
>

Original question translation:

> Hello teacher Paul!
>
>
> I hope that you are well.
>
>
>
> We, that is my friends and I, have a question. What's the origin of the word 'ketuwong'? We think it may have come from "not us", "not person of us" or "not one person of us" but we don't know. This is interesting to us. You don't have to reply in Na'vi if you don't want to. We await your answer.
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> **Ulte furia ngeyä tìpawmìri fìtì'eyng hawngkrr fìtxan za'u ngane, oeru txoa livu. Srane, pxaya ayufpi sulìn oe nìfkrr, slä fìtìkangkem zerawprrte' oene. :-)**
>
>
> **Nìrangal lirvu oer tì'eyng asìltsan! Nìkeftxo ke längu oeru.**
>
>
> (Forgive me for switching to English.)
>
>
> The fact is, I really don't remember where **ketuwong** comes from. I've searched my records, but the word probably dates back to 2005 or 2006, and I haven't been able to find my notes from that era. Your suggestions, although creative, don't really ring a bell. So for the time being at least, this will have to remain a mystery. Should I discover the source, I'll certainly let you know!
>
>
> Sorry I don't have a more satisfying response for you.
>
>
> In any event, thanks for your continued interest and support.
>
>
> **Kìyevame, ma 'eylan.**
>
>
>
> ta Pawl
>
>

Original correspondence translation:

> I'm sorry for the late response. I'm busy, for the sake of many things, but it's pleasing to me.
> I wish that I had a good answer! Sadly, I don't.
>
>

*Originally received on May 3rd, 2017*
Na'vi Language Wiki

**Welcome to the Na'vi Language Wiki!**
An open source documentation of the Na'vi language.

The Na'vi language was created for the 2009 film *AVATAR* by USC Professor Paul Frommer. Since 2009, the language has been expanded thanks to a collaborative partnership between Professor Frommer and the community who has learned to speak the language. This wiki serves to document the language, its grammar, and official correspondence between Professor Frommer and the community, for the sake of future generations of teachers and learners.

## Article Categories

* Grammar
* Language Updates
* Open Questions
Case Endings of Loan Words Ending with a Neutral ì (follow-up on Kerìsmìsì + ä)

Original question text:

> Kaltxì ma frapo,
>
>
> I got back to Karyu Pawl about the case endings of Kerìsmìsì and the other loan words ending with a neutral ì.
>
>
>
> The method to add the genitive to Kerìsmìsì is already established, but I thought appropriate to extend the concept to the other words and case endings. That being said, there is a problem with the patientive. While the Horen allows -it and -ti for consonants, -ti cannot apply everywhere. For example, you can have Kelnit, but certainly not \*Kelnti. In this context, I sent an email and here's what he replied:
>
>

>
>
> The rules given in the Horen apply to native Na'vi roots. In the case of Kelnì, the "theoretical root" (there's probably a better term for that) is \*Keln, which of course could not be a native Na'vi root because of the syllable-final consonant cluster. In cases like these, you add the usual endings to the "theoretical root" when the result would be an allowable Na'vi word; when it wouldn't, you have to make adjustments.
>
>
> In this case, you need two simple adjustments. One is that the Subjective form becomes Kelnì. The other is that for the Patientive, the -ti form must be excluded. The entire paradigm is then:
>
>
> Kelnì
>
>
> Kelnìl (note that this is Keln + ìl, not Kelnì + l)
>
>
> Kelnit (not Kelnti and not Kelnìt)
>
>
> Kelnur
>
>
> Kelnä
>
>
> Kelnìri (again, Keln + ìri, not Kelnì + ri)
>
>
> We need a little additional subsection in the Horen to cover these relatively rare cases.
>
>
> Also, remember there are native roots that end in ì. Hapxì is a good example. These follow the usual rules for roots ending in a vowel. So the paradigm for hapxì is:
>
>
> hapxì
>
>
> hapxìl
>
>
> hapxìt OR hapxìti
>
>
> hapxìr OR hapxìru
>
>
> hapxìyä
>
>
> hapxìri
>
>
>
> Hope that's all clear! 😊
>
>

*Originally received on December 29th, 2021*
3.3

The prenouns are adjective-like noun prefixes.

## 3.3.1 - Fì-

This prenoun is for proximal deixis, *this*. When it is followed by the plural prefix **ay+** they generally contract into **fay+** *these* in casual speech. However, in precise or formal speech, **fìay+** may be used, **oel foru fìaylì’ut tolìng a krr, kxawm oe harmahängaw**.

### **3.3.1.1**

Some nouns and adjectives pair with **fì-** to form adverbs, such as **fìtrr** *today* and **fìtxan** *so (much)*.

## 3.3.2 - Tsa-

This is distal deixis, *that*. When it is followed by the plural prefix **ay+** they contract into **tsay+** *those*.

## 3.3.3 - -Pe+

This question prenoun means *what, which* as in **pelì’u** *which word*? It is unusual in that it may be either a prefix (**pelì’u**) or a suffix (**lì’upe**). When prefixed, the following word takes lenition. When the prefix is followed by the plural prefix **ay+** they contract into **pay+**.

## 3.3.4 - Fra-

This prenoun means *all, every*. When it is followed by the plural prefix **ay+** they contract into **fray+**.

## 3.3.5 - Fne-

This prefix means *type (of), sort (of)*.

### **3.3.5.1**

The prefix is related to the noun **fnel**, also meaning *type, sort*. It can occur with a noun in the genitive to get the same meaning as the prefix. **Tsafnel syulangä** and **tsafnesyulang** both mean *that kind of flower*.

## 3.3.6 - Contraction

When a prenoun ends with the same vowel the following word starts with, the vowels contract, as in **tsatan** *that light* from **tsa-atan** (2.3.1.3).

## 3.3.7 - Combinations

The prenouns may combine on a single word, in this order:

Order of Combination of Prenouns

Only one from each column may be used, and of course the question affix is only used once.

**3.3.7.1** Short plurals (3.1.4.1) are not used with the deictic prenouns; **tsaytele** those matters, never **\*tsatele** (singular **txele**).

## Open Questions

* **3.3.7** The full details of this ordering are not yet confirmed for **fra-**.
New Words; Leftxozä + Poston + Kelnì

Original question text:

> In the name of the whole current (mainly beginners') Lerngruppe some of the members composed a message (because it was his birthday), including .mp3 of the text and I sent it to KP (my first mail to him, weeh!). Today he answered, giving us not only very kind words as usual, but also new words:
>
>

 Original correspondence text:

> **Kaltxì, ma smuk! Oel ayngati kameie nìwotx. Ayngeyä lora fì’upxare leftxozä [lì’u amip: =** ‘celebratory’**] oeru teya soli nìngay. Ulte fwa tsun oe stivawm aymokrit awngeyä tengkrr nìNa’vi perlltxe nìlor fìtxan leiu stxeli akosman frato.**
>
>
> **Furia ’eyng oe ayngaru hawngkrr, oeru txoa livu. Tsyan sì oe serop fte fivrrfen oeyä tsmukanti a mì Nìyu Yorkì kelku si sì moeyä eylanti a mì Foston (Poston =** Boston**). Tìsop leiu txantsan.**
>
>
> **Srane, rutxe ayrelit a ta Kelnì (**Köln**) fpive’! New oe ayngati nìwotx tsive’a nìmun!**
>
>
> **Ulte nìmun, irayo nìtxan, ma smuk. Eywa ayngahu nìwotx frakrr.**
>
>
>
> **ta Pawl**
>
>

 Original correspondence translation:

> Hello siblings! I see you all completely. Your beautiful, celebratory message filled me with joy, truly. And that I can hear your voices while you speak in Na'vi beautifully is a more wonderful gift than anything.
>
>
> Regarding the fact that I answered you all late, I am sorry. John and I are traveling to visit with my brother that lives in New Yor and our friend who lives in Boston. Travel is excellent.
>
>
> Yes, please send pictures of Cologne! I want to see you all again!
>
>
> And again, thanks so much, siblings. Eywa be with you always.
>
>
>
> From Paul
>
>

*Originally received on September 20th, 2018*
4.4 - Other Forms

## 4.4.1 - Alo

The word **alo** *time, turn* combines with numbers to form instance adverbs. Four of these form compounds, **’awlo** *once*, **melo** *twice*, **pxelo** *thrice, three times* and **fralo** *each time, every time*. All others combine as normal attributive adjectives, **alo amrr poan polawm** *he asked five times*.

## 4.4.2 - -lie

The word **’awlie** refers to a single event in the past.

## 4.4.3 - Alien Digits

When quoting English digits, Na’vi will use **’eyt** for *eight* and **nayn** for *nine*. These are not used for counting, but for things like phone numbers.

**4.4.3.1** **Kew** is *zero*.

## Open Questions

**4.4.3.1** Current documentation doesn’t make clear if this idea is native or imported from the Humans.
Sì vs. ulte, ka ya vs. mì ya, and a Note on Sneyä

Original question text:

> **Kaltxì ma frapo**,
>
>
> maybe this is not news for you but I thought I’d let you know. For the German study group last week I wrote a short story for listening comprehension that contained the sentence (as I wrote it):
>
>
>      \*Sunu poru syulang sì mauti ulte fwa tswayon yaka.
>
>
> with the intended meaning “he (i.e. a bird) likes flowers, fruits and to fly through the air.”
>
>
>
> There was a discussion about how to say “through the air” and — more importantly — whether ulte was correct here. I had the chance to ask K. Pawl about it and he responded:
>
>

>
>
> First, I like **ka ya** better than **mì ya**. Maybe it’s a bias from English, I don’t know, but flying through the air sounds more appropriate than flying in the air. I guess **ka ya** is actually “across the air,” but that’s OK too.
>
>
> As for your other question, I would use **sì** in that situation, not **ulte**.
>
>
> The thing is it’s really a list of parallel items … flowers, fruit, flying through the air. That is, they’re all noun phrases (the first two of which are the simplest possible noun phrases: just a noun). So they should be tied together with **sì**. In English, for example, if you say “I like X,” whatever X is is a noun phrase.
>
>
>
> Or think of it this way: You have three nouns in parallel: **syulang, mauti, fì’u**. The last one happens to have a modifying clause attached to it:
>
>
> > **fì’u [a tswayon ka ya]** = **fwa tswayon yaka**.
> >
> >
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>

Original question text:

> This is about the sentence from the Disney World of Pandora Pamphlet and the sentence
>
>
> > **Rä’ä fmivi kxu sivi ayioangur fu helkur feyä**
> >
> >
>
> where I thought it would be a case for **sneyä** because I interpreted it as “his/her/their own” regardless of position in a sentence (and I’ve noticed a lot of learners doing this as well).
> K. Pawl clarified:
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> I think **feyä** is better in that sentence than **sneyä**. I'd like to reserve **sneyä** for cases where a 3rd-person subject (sg. or pl.) interacts with its own possessive, if that makes sense. So this eliminates an ambiguity that can arise in English (and German too?): If I say, "Mark painted his house," I don't know if Mark painted someone else's house (maybe John's house), or if Mark painted his own house. But this ambiguity doesn't arise in Na'vi, since in the first case you use **peyä** and in the second **sneyä**. However, that's not what's going on in this sentence, I don't think, since it's an imperative sentence ("Don't harm . . . ") where the (unexpressed) subject is not 3rd person but 2nd (i.e., **nga**).
>
>

*Originally received on January 23rd, 2018*
Nika Lan Linh

## Mạng Xã Hội

Youtube

Fanpage Trên Facebook

Twitter

## Sở Thích:

* Cá Nhân: Game, ăn ngủ, du lịch, ngắm cảnh.
* Ăn Uống: Cua, Tiramisu và các loại bánh, trà sữa full toping.

## Sở Ghét:

* Mấy con vật không có chân và những con nhiều chân.

## Thông Tin Bên Lề:

* *Hashtag trên **Twitter** -* #Linart.
* *Hashtag trên **Facebook** -* #Linart.

* Model hiện tạiChuyển đến https://www.facebook.com/nikalanlinh/photos/pb.100084285204412.-2207520000./102764352555890/?type=3
1/1
On Sequential Verbs and Quoting

Original question text:

> **Ma frapo**,
>
>
> After the latest blog post with its example for **pon**, I was curious about this sentence: **Tsun nekll zivup tsawng**.
>
>
>
> My question was about the scope of them because, potentially, you could stack as many as you want together until the end of the last songs. Quote from me:
>
>
> > Did you ever decide on how far these can go? Can you have a sequence [of] more than two verbs? In other words, are (to put it to its extreme)
> >
> >
> >      1) **oe fmi tivätxaw tsun tìnvi sivi**
> >      2) **ne kelku oe tätxaw yäpur yom hahaw**
> >
> >
> >
> > possible?
> >
> >
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> I don't think there should be more than two such verbs sequentially. If you need more, simply insert a **tsakrr**.
>
>

Additional correspondence account:

> For the next one, I can’t give you a quote, unfortunately—so I have to rely on my memory. I was asking him about whether **san … sìk** could be used as people like to do in our quoting formula in (written) stories: “ …, ” he said, i.e., **san … sìk** coming initially before the quoting formula like **po plltxe**.
>
>
> He specifically said to me that he couldn’t imagine it being used that way.
>
>
>
> So, **san … (sìk)** will always come after the introduction formula like **po plltxe**/**pawm**/**ätxäle si** etc.
>
>

*Originally received on May 2nd, 2020*
3.5

The prenouns are adjective-like noun prefixes.

## 3.5.1 - Attribution

Attributive adjectives are joined to their noun with the affix **-a-**, which is attached to the adjective on the side closest to the noun, as in **yerik awin** or **wina yerik** for “a fast yerik.”

**3.5.1.1** A derived adjective in **le-** usually drops the prefixed (but not suffixed) **a-**, so either **ayftxozä lefpom** or, more rarely, **ayftxozä alefpom** may appear. However, when the **le-**adjective comes before the noun, it will always have the attributive **-a-** suffixed, **lefpoma ayftxozä**.

 **lefpoma ayftxozä** | correct
If nì- will Attach at 'e'

Original question text:

> **Kaltxì ma frapo!**
> **Oe polawm Karyu Pawlur lì'uteri alu nìyawr ulte lu oeru 'upxare atxantsan.**
>
>

Original question translation:

> Hello everyone!
> I asked teacher Paul about the word 'nìyawr' and I have an excellent message.
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> You've done a very nice job of analysis! What you've determined about nì- being added to a root that starts with e is absolutely correct. It does indeed depend on the stress.
>
>
> If the stress is on the e, the e "overpowers" the ì of nì-, which then drops. So, as you've noted,
>
>
> *\*nìetrìp* > **netrìp**
>
>
> But if the e is unstressed, then the ì of nì- overpowers the e. So:
>
>
> *\*nìeyawr* > **nìyawr**
>
>
> You've determined the rules correctly!
>
>
> There are some exceptions, though. For example, in the Weaving Song, there's this line:
>
>
> **Katot täftxu oel nìean nìrim**   'I weave the rhythm in yellow and blue'
>
>
>
> Here the unusual word **nìean** 'in blue' has remained in its original form, without becoming *\*nean*.
>
>

*Originally received on October 9th, 2013*
Distributive Property of Adjectives

Original question text:

> **Kaltxì ma Pawl!**
>
>
> **Oel ngati kameie.**
>
>
> So here is the quick question, about how a certain phrase in Na'vi works...
>
>
> A.) **eana kelku sì taw**
>
>
> Is this ambiguous or not? How should it be parsed?
>
>
> 1.) **{eana kelku} sì taw**
>
>
> OR
>
>
> 2.) **eana {kelku sì taw}**
>
>
> = **eana kelku sì eana taw**
>
>
> Although we do know that to break any ambiguity, we can say:
>
>
> B.) **kelku aean sì taw**
>
>
> and it can only parse as
>
>
> **{kelku aean} sì taw**
>
>
> I suppose a question is, Does the adjective **ean** in (A) distribute across both nouns connected by **sì**? (Like in English, and like (2)) or is it already unambigous and (1) is the only correct interpretation?
>
>
>
> This has really been making Neytiri and I think a lot today.
>
>

Original correspondence transcription (phone call):

> Ah yes. I did, actually. I've actually used a similar example before when teaching about this same ambiguity in English. The example was something like:
>
>
> Older men and women...
>
>
> As you know, this phrase is ambiguous in English. It's natural in cases like these to distribute the adjective to both nouns.
>
>
> So you assumed that the adjective *doesn't* distribute? If the adjective *didn't* distribute... then there would be no real way of having it apply to both nouns without .. without repeating the same adjective again.
>
>
> [It *would be cumbersome*.] I think it's natural to be able to distribute it across without repeating it again. But yes, that certain word order of the phrase would be ambiguous. What do you think of this?
>
>
> **kelku sì taw aean**
>
>
>
> [We] can disambiguate by moving the word **ean** in this case.
>
>

*Originally received on March 16th, 2015*
About Fmetok and po/fo

Original question text:

> Ma frapo,
> Just a small confirmation. I was courious to know how **tìfmetok**/**fmetok** is used. So I asked K. Pawl about it and here is his response:
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> Yes, **tìfmetok** can be a test in school. It can also be a more abstract test, as in "test of strength" or "a test of our resolve." And **fmetok** is vtr, 'test somebody.' The infixes are indeed 1, 2. (**Fmetok** has nothing to do with **tok**.) Here's a line from the original Avatar script, for the scene where Neytiri has brought Jake to Hometree for the first time, and Mo'at has just examined him:
>
>
> > **Neytiril fmayetok fìtsamsiyut.**
> > 'Neytiri will test this "warrior."'
> >
> >
>
>

Original question text:

> I was also wondering for a little story I was writing whether it is ok to refer to animals as po/fo. He said:
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> Yes, in the same way we can do it in English. It really depends on the kind of animal and our relationship to it. I only call my cats "he" and "she," but to refer to an insect I'd probably say "it."
>
>

*Originally received on February 25th, 2017*
Confirmation on Genitive Form of Pesu

Original question text:

> In a grammar discussion today, the question came up regarding how to express the "whose" in "whose vegetables are these?". While we are fairly confident in **lu pesur fayfkxen**, the discussion came to the genitive of **pesu** and **tupe**. It seems logical for **tupe** to become **tupeyä**, but when it comes to **pesu** an interesting question comes up. With every other pronoun we know of- **oe, nga, po, fko,** and **sno**, the last vowel is changed to e, and then yä is added. Is **pesu** considered a pronoun, and if so, does it become **peseyä** or **pesuä**? Or are my assumptions about this -eyä change affecting all pronouns incorrect?
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> **Pesu** and **tupe** are marked in the dictionaries as “inter.,” i.e. interrogative. But you’re right—they’re interrogative pronouns. As such, your speculation about \***peseyä** is perfectly reasonable. However, the genitive of **pesu** is indeed **pesuä**.
>
>
> The reason for this is that the -su/tu- in these pronouns is, as you know, derived from **tute** ‘person.’ It’s the same morpheme as in the nouns ending in -tu that indicate people: **koaktu, reltseotu, snaytu, tiretu**, etc. Those nouns all have the standard genitive: **koaktuä, reltseotuä**, etc. So there’s pressure from those forms to keep the same pattern for **pesu**, since the -su retains something of its noun-y character.
>
>
> An alternative translation of “Whose vegetables are these?” would therefore be:
>
>
> **Fayfkxen lu pum pesuä?**
>
>
>
> Hope that all makes sense!
>
>

*Originally received on December 19th, 2022*
More Stuff About the May 28th Post on Na'viteri

Original question text:

> This is a very interesting answer. So I guess "**vin teyngta**" would be complementary to **pawm** due its restriction.
>
>
> My only question about **'eyng** for now: How do we build a construction like the following: He answered that he doesn't know him.
>
>
>
> **Irayo seiyi ngaru**! I'm sure the community will be pleased by this post.
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> Yes, **vin teyngta** is fine:
>
>
> **Fol volin teyngta Tsyeykìl tok pesenget**.
>
>
> This means essentially, "They wanted to know where Jake is." In terrible English, but more literally: "They requested the where-is-Jake answer." 😊
>
>
> As for "He answered that he doesn't know him," I'd simply say:
>
>
> **'Oleyng po san po ke smon oeru sìk**.
>
>
> **'Eyng** here can be considered a verb of speaking like **plltxe**, and so it takes **san . . . sìk**.
>
>
>
> P.
>
>

*Originally received on December 30th, 2020*
Dative -ru Clarification

Original question text:

> It came up on Discord about how we know that the -ti suffix has been defined as being usable no matter what sound the word ends with. The question was is -ru like -ti in this way? According to the chart at Horen 3.1.1, it's not, because it can't be used on words ending with consonant/pseudovowel. Yet Plumps has found that Karyu Pawl has said **olo'ru** and/or **lì'fyaolo'ru**. Here is what he had to say about this:
>
>

>
>
> Good catch! It's amazing how after all these years there are still things I haven't noticed about Na'vi!
>
>
> A form like **olo'ru** sounds very natural to me, and I suspect you'd hear it on Pandora. So it's not a mistake. It's an exception to the chart in the Horen, which should be noted. I'll let Wm know about it.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the way this exception arose is that the **tìftang** is a consonant that sometimes tends drop out in fast, casual speech. For example, if you're careful and correct in your pronunciation, you'll pronounce names like Mo'at and Lo'ak with a distinct glottal stop. But in fast casual speech, they can come out as simply Moat and Loak. If the glottal stop can also drop out at the end of word under these circumstances, then you could get **oloru**. And that could lead back to **olo'ru**.
>
>

Originally received on December 25th, 2020
Si-verbs Modification

Original question text:

> Recently one of community members who rewrites Na'vi in a nutshell (simple grammar document for beginners) asked me about si-verb, more exactly about productivity of adding affixes to noun part of si-verbs.
>
>
> We have examples like **fìkem si**/**tsakem si**/**kempe si**/**wina uvan si**, however except these examples there is no writen rule saying that this is productive process. The only information, [is quite vague]:
>
>
> "Second, like with **kem**, and apologies that you have to rely on my faulty memory for this one as I asked this during a break so as far as I know I'm the only witness (Hopefully I'm not misremembering), you can use modifiers on si verbs where it makes sense"
>
>
>
> So, simple yes/no question just to be sure - it is safe to use affixes/adjective modifiers with noun part of si-verbs, if such modification gives sense?
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> Ah, that's a good question. The general answer is: You can modify the noun component of si-construction verbs in most cases when it makes sense. For example, you could modify **srung** in **srung si**:
>
>
> **Txana srung soli po oer**.
>
>
> 'He helped me a lot.'
>
>
> (Literally, He did much help to me.)
>
>
> But you wouldn't modify **nari** in **nari si** or **kelku** in **kelku si**; those are more idiomatic and "frozen," where modifying the noun component wouldn't be plausible.
>
>
> So like many things in language, there isn't a simple yes-no answer. It's more like a scale: On one end are the si-constructions where the noun part is freely modifiable; on the other end are the "frozen" constructions where the nouns aren't modifiable. The more the "si" part can be interpreted as "doing" something to or with the noun part, the more modifiable the noun part is. So with **kem si** and **srung si**, I'm doing an action and doing help respectively. With **nari si** and **kelku si**, however, I'm not really "doing" eye or "doing" home.
>
>
>
> I know that's still a bit vague, but I hope it helps.
>
>

*Originally received on December 6th, 2013*
Location of the Vocative

Original question text:

> When you have a polar question ending in **srak**, can it be followed by a vocative, or would the vocative be before the srak?
>
>
> **Ngaru lu fpom srak, ma** <name>?  (etc.)
>
>
> My guess is that's just fine, given how vocatives are, but some would appreciate an official declaration.
>
>
> And then there's:
>
>
> 1. **Ma** <name>, **nga plltxe nìltsan**.
>
>
> 2. **Nga, ma** <name>, **plltxe nìltsan**.
>
>
> 3. **Nga plltxe, ma** <name> **nìltsan**.
>
>
>
> That is, can a vocative intrude anywhere, as a stylistic thing?
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> Answers are: yes, yes, yes, and yes. All those forms are fine. Vocatives SHOULD follow **srak**, but 1, 2, and 3 are fine.
>
>

*Originally received on February 26th, 2018*
Tsa-Words, the Complete Set

Original question text:

> Speaking of contractions that we haven't seen officially yet, do "**tsa'ul a**", "**tsa'ur a**", and "**tsa'uri a**" contract?
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> The answer is: Yes! The contracted forms are:
>
>
> **fwa / tsawa**
>
>
> **fula / tsala**
>
>
> **futa / tsata**
>
>
> **fura / tsara**
>
>
> **furia / tsaria**
>
>
> So we have 5 "f-words" and 5 parallel "ts-words." The only missing ones are the theoretical **fì'uä a** --> **fuä** (**fua** would get confused with **fwa**) , and **tsa'uä a** --> **tsä**, but I can't think of any contexts in which they would be used. [I may be having second thoughts on this! More soon, I hope.]
>
>
>
> As you've noticed, I've been using the f-versions pretty much exclusively. The ts-versions could certainly be used as well, but I don't think it would be a random choice. There should be some principle that decides between **fwa** and **tsawa**, **futa** and **tsata**, etc. I'll need to think about that.
>
>

*Originally received on April 21st, 2020*
Sno with Topical

Original question text:

> There was no reason to doubt this was possible, but after some searching I wasn't able to find an example to put in the *Horen*, so I asked Paul if **sno** could refer back to a topical which was clearly acting as a subject. I gave these examples:
>
>
> **Skxawngìri zìmup ulte sneyä tsko kxakx**. *The idiot fell and broke his/her (own) bow.*
>
>
>
> **Tawtuteri snohu perängkxo tengkrr terìran mì na'rìng**. *The human was talking to himself while walking in the forest.*
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> Those seem fine to me. No reason **sno** can't refer back to a previously mentioned NP, even if it's a topical.
>
>

*Originally received on November 27th, 2020*
6.9

## 6.9.1 - Participles

Na’vi participles are restricted in their use — they may only be used attributively, never as predicates. Since they are adjectives, they are linked to the noun they go with using the attributive affix **-a-** (3.5.1), **palulukan atusaron lu lehrrap** *a hunting thanator is dangerous*.

**6.9.1.1** Some derived words have participles in them, and these may be used predictively, as in **lu nga txantslusam** *you are wise*, with the active participle **tsl‹us›am** in it.

**6.9.1.2** The participles of **si** construction verbs are counted as a single word. They are written with a hyphen connecting **si** and the other word and the attributive a is attached to the entire phrase, not just **si**:

* **srung-susia tute**
* **tute asrung-susi**

Both phrases mean *a helping person*.

## 6.9.2 - Gerunds

Any verb may be freely turned into a gerund, a noun describing the action of the verb (5.1.4.1). They can be used with adverbs (6.6.2), but they may not take subjects or direct objects, **tìyusom ’o’ lu** *eating is fun*.

**6.9.2.1** English often uses gerunds to nominalize a phrase (“running a marathon is difficult”). In Na’vi such clause nominalization is handled with **fì’u** or **tsa’u** (6.18.4), **fwa yom teylut ’o’ lu** *eating teylu is fun*.
3.4

Demonstrative pronouns and certain common adverbs of time, manner and place, are simply nouns paired with prenouns. However, the system is not perfectly regular.

**3.4.0.1** For the forms of **tsa’u**, see 3.2.1.8.

## 3.4.1 - Questions-

As with nouns, the question affix **-pe+** may be either a leniting prefix or a suffix.

**3.4.1.1** The question word for people, **tupe** / **pesu** *who*, has a enormous collection of gendered and non-singular forms:

The non-singular forms of **pehem** / **kempe** follow a similar pattern:

## 3.4.2 - Fì'u and Tsaw in Clause Nominalization-

The demonstrative pronoun **fì’u** and the inanimate pronoun **tsaw** are used with the attributive particle a to nominalize clauses (6.18.4). When the attributive particle follows certain case forms of the pronoun, they contract:

## 3.4.3 - Fmawn and Tì'eyng in Clause Nominalization

While **fì’u** and **tsaw** may nominalize clauses of most types, verbs of hearing, speaking and questioning prefer the nouns **fmawn** *news*, **tì’eyng** *answer* and **faylì’u** *these words*. There are fewer contractions:

 Agentive
 Patientive

There are contractions only in the patientive for **fmawn** and **faylì’u**, which are **fmawnta** (< **fmawnit a**) and **fayluta** (< **faylì’ut a**). See 6.21.4 for the syntax.

## Open Questions

**3.4.0** Plurals for these are a bit funky. Though **tsa’u** is from **tsa-** and **’u**, the plural is **(ay)sa’u**. Confirmed, but details might be nice. How to work in **tsapo**?

1. ↑ http://naviteri.org/2011/07/number-in-na%E2%80%99vi/
2. ↑ Tsa-Words, the Complete Set
3. ↑ http://naviteri.org/2011/08/reported-speech-reported-questions/
On "siva ko" and "sivako"

Original question text:

> Everybody knows the expression "**Siva ko**!", which means "Let's rise to the challenge!".
> Considering that people outside the Na'vi community tend to write the expression in a single word, **sivako**, I asked Karyu Pawl if this was acceptable.
>
>

 Original correspondence text:

> **Lam fwa pxaya ’eylan a tok Mo’arat nulnew sivar tsalì’ukìngit alu Siva ko! na lì’u a’aw. Tì’efumì oeyä, tsalì’u alu sivako tsun tivam.**
>
>

 Original correspondence translation:

> It seems like many friends of **Mo'ara** prefer too use the sentence "**Siva ko**!" as one word. In my opinion, that word "**sivako**" is OK.
>
>

*Originally received on August 4th, 2019*
Reflexive, Causative in Combination with the Infixes us and awn

Original question text:

> So, few days back, I have reminded Pawl about an old question regarding possibility of combination of <äp>/<eyk> +< us>/<awn>
> **Ayngar fì'u**:
>
>

>
>
> As you know, äp + awn is impossible. There are then 4 possible combinations to consider:
>
>
> äp + eyk
>
>
> äp + us
>
>
> eyk + awn
>
>
> eyk + us.
>
>
> All 4 of these ARE possible, at least with certain verbs in certain situations. Here are some examples:
>
>
> äp + eyk
>
>
> There was an example in one of my blog posts, from April 30, 2015. It concerned the verb **'rrko** 'roll.'
>
>
> http://naviteri.org/2015/04/some-new-words-for-may-day/
>
>
> And if you yourself are rolling—i.e., causing yourself to roll—use <eyk> along with the reflexive infix <äp>:
>
>
> **Tseyk ’äpeykamrrko äo utral a zolup fte hivifwo ftu aysre’ palulukanä.**
>
>
> ‘Jake rolled under the fallen tree to escape from the thanator’s teeth.’
>
>
> That is, Jake caused (<eyk>) himself (<äp>) to roll . . .
>
>
> äp + us
>
>
> You yourself gave a good examples of this combination in your first email a couple of years ago. You considered it ungrammatical in Na'vi, but actually, I think it's OK:
>
>
> **Oel tse'a ioangit ayäpusur.**
>
>
> 'I see a self-washing animal.'
>
>
> *German: Ich sehe ein sich selbstwaschendes Tier.*
>
>
> The English translation, though, might be a little different: 'I see an animal (that is in the process of) washing itself.' That's a bit different from 'I see a self-washing animal.' The former sentence implies you're watching an animal that is in the process of washing itself; the latter typically means you're watching an animal that has the general characteristic of being able to wash itself, even though it may not be doing that at the present moment. Right now I think that both interpretations are OK in Na'vi, but I need to think about that some more. If you or anyone else has thoughts about this, I'd like to hear them!
>
>
> My German isn't good enough to know whether or not the German version you've provided can have that meaning as well.
>
>
> You also gave another example:
>
>
> **Lu oeru piak-säpusia sähena.**
>
>
> I have a self-opening container.
>
>
> *German: Ich habe einen (sich) selbstöffnenden Behälter.*
>
>
> This could also mean: 'I have a container (that is in the process of) opening itself.' Of course that meaning is a bit bizarre.
>
>
> eyk + awn
>
>
> A good example of this involves the verb **zup' *'*fall*.' As you know, the causative version of this,*** *zeykup**, means '*****drop (deliberately)*.' So*** *zeykawnup **is the participle meaning 'dropped':** rum azeykawnup**,** a (deliberately) dropped ball.*'
>
>
> eyk + us
>
>
> As you pointed out, I had mentioned in a comment that **zeykuso' *is a correct word. An example of its use might be:*** *'ewll azeykusoa healing plant*'--that is, a plant with healing properties.
>
>
>
> ta Pawl
>
>

*Originally received on August 26th, 2016*