1. Weeks and months
As you know, the days of the ’Rrtan week are:
Trr’awve Sunday
Trrmuve Monday
Trrpxeyve Tuesday
Trrtsìve Wednesday
Trrmrrve Thursday
Trrpuve Friday
Trrkive Saturday
But what about “week” itself and related words? Here’s some useful vocabulary:
kintrr (n., KIN.trr) ‘(7-day) week’
mrrtrr (n., MRR.trr) ‘5-day workweek’
muntrr (n., MUN.trr) ‘weekend’
Don’t confuse muntrr with mesrr, which simply means ‘(any) two days.’
Just like trr itself, these words take fì-, -am, and -ay with the obvious meanings:
fìkintrr ‘this (present) week’
kintrram ‘last week’
kintrray ‘next week’
fìmuntrr ‘this (present) weekend’
muntrram ‘last weekend’
muntrray ‘next weekend’
As for ‘month,’ the word is:
vospxì (n., vo.SPXÌ) ‘month’
It’s derived from the phrase vosìpxì zìsìtä, ‘a twelfth of the year.’ And we also have:
fìvospxì ‘this month’
vospxìam ‘last month’
vospxìay ‘next month’
The names of the months? We’ll save that for another time. But keep in mind that all of these calendar expressions reflect the situation here on earth; they’re used by the Na’vi when they want to or need to talk about how the Sawtute reckon time (and of course by us here ’Rrrtamì). Time-reckoning on Pandora is a matter that awaits further research.
2. Must and should
As you already know, zene ‘must’ and zenke ‘must not’ work as follows:
Nga zene kivä. or Zene nga kivä.
‘You must go.’
Nga zenke kivä. or Zenke nga kivä.
‘You must not go.’
Nga ke zene kivä. or Ke zene nga kivä.
‘It’s not necessary/obligatory that you go.’
(You can also use these words impersonally: Zene kivä. ‘I/you/she/one/etc. must go. or It’s necessary to go.’ Note also the ‘hybrid’ variant: Ngari zene kivä. Literally: ‘As for you, it’s necessary to go.’ There’s usually more than one way to skin a cat in Na’vi! And I wonder if anyone can come up with the Pandoran equivalent of that expression . . .)
‘Should’ works a bit differently. The word is:
sweylu (v., SWEY.lu) ‘should’
This is a development of swey lu ‘it’s best,’ which has fused into a single word that acts somewhat like a modal . . . a quasi-modal, if you prefer, but without the hunchback. (Oeru txoa livu.)
The syntax depends on whether ‘should’ refers to something that hasn’t yet happened (the more common situation) or something that’s already happened. For the former, use txo ‘if’ plus the -iv- (subjunctive) form of the verb:
Sweylu txo nga kivä. or Nga sweylu txo kivä.
‘You should go.’
Sweylu txo nga ke kivä. or Nga sweylu txo ke kivä.
‘You shouldn’t go.’
(Other word orders are possible too, of course. For example, Sweylu txo ke kivä nga. And then there’s the impersonal form: Sweylu txo kivä. ‘I/you/she/one/etc. should go.’)
For something that’s already happened, use fwa (= fì’u a) or tsawa (= tsa’u a) with the past or perfect indicative (that is, non-subjunctive):
Sweylu fwa nga kolä.
‘You should have gone.’
Slä nari si! This is not the most common use of English ‘should have’—i.e., the counterfactual one, as in: “You should have gone, but you didn’t, ma skxawng!” Rather, it’s more like, “You went, and in fact it was the right thing to do.” Example:
Tsenu: Spaw oe, fwa po kolä längu kxeyey.
‘I believe it was a mistake for him to go/have gone.’
Kamun: Kehe, kehe! Sweylu fwa po kolä!
‘No, no! He should have gone!’
(Note: Tsenu’s sentence above is colloquial and conversational. A more formal version would be: Spängaw oel futa fwa po kolä lu kxeyey.)
So how does one say “should have” in the counterfactual sense? Zene maweypivey, ma eylan. 🙂 I’m working on a post about counterfactuals in general . . .
One more thing before we leave this topic:
In English and some other languages, words like should and must have developed secondary meanings. In addition to the basic sense having to do with obligation, right and wrong, better and worse, etc. (the “root” sense), there’s also a sense having to do with probability, likelihood, etc. (the “epistemic” sense). An example of the latter is, “He’s on his way. He should be here any minute.” As another example, consider the sentence, “You must be a doctor.” That can have both a root and an epistemic interpretation:
Root: “Son, your greatgrandfather was a doctor, your grandfather was a doctor, and I’m a doctor. It’s our family tradition. Whether you like it or not, I’m afraid you have no choice. You must be a doctor too.”
Epistemic: “I see you’re wearing a white coat and you have a stethoscope around your neck and a prescription pad in your pocket. Hmm . . . You must be a doctor!”
The point of all this is that Na’vi does not allow epistemic interpretations of zene and sweylu. They’re purely root. If you want the epistemic senses, you need to use probability words like skxakep.
And finally, thanks to the vocabulary committee for:
3. ye (adj.) ‘satisfied, content; satiated, “full”’
This is an adjective of feeling, so it’s used with ’efu ‘feel’ in the same way as keftxo, nitram, ohakx, väng, etc.
Tsaria fkol pole’un futa Loak slu taronyu, sempul ’efu ye.
‘Father is content that it’s been decided Loak will be a hunter.’
Ngeyä tìkangkemìri ’efeiu oe ye nìtxan. Seysonìltsan!
‘I’m very satisfied with your work. Well done!’
Note the following vocabulary:
hasey si (v., ha.SEY si) ‘accomplish, bring to a conclusion’
Nì’i’a po tsatìkangkemvir hasey soli.
‘She finally completed the project.’
seysonìltsan (sey.so.nìl.TSAN) ‘well done!’ (a conversational expression derived from hasey soli nìltsan)
Note these two derived forms:
yehakx (adj., YE.hakx) ‘satisfied from hunger by food, “full stomach”’
yeväng (adj, YE.väng) ‘satisfied from thirst by drink, feeling quenched/slaked’
Srekrr ’amefu väng, set yeväng.
‘Before, I was thirsty; now my thirst has been quenched.’
Tsenu:
Srake yehakx? ‘Did you get enough to eat?’
Kamun:
(a) Stum. ‘Almost. (What’s for dessert?)’
(b) Ye. Tsun tivam. ‘Yes. That’ll be enough.’
(c) Nìtxan! ‘Very! I’m quite full.’
(d) Nìhaawwwng. ‘Oooh. I ate too much.’
More weather expressions are coming . . . Hayalovay!
Edit 05 April: Added the necessary fwa to Spängaw oel futa fwa po kolä lu kxeyey. Corrected spelling of zìsìtä.
Fì’ul oer ’eykolefeiu ye nìwotx!! 🙂
Seiyi irayo!
Furia nga ‘efu ye, ‘efu oe ye nìteng. 🙂
Ìì.. srake tsun fko pivlltxe san oe lu ye sìk tup san oe ‘efu ye? Oeru lu yayayr taweyk fpamìl oel futa tsaw lu kxeyey.
Oeri key tun slolu nìtxan. (Fwolew oel “horror emoticon”-it, slä ke rolun.) Irayo! (Sometimes when you’re not thinking, your native language takes over . . . )
Ma Karyu,
these will be so useful! Seysonìltsan (fìlì’fyavi sunu oer nìtxan!) Thank you so much for your continuing effort.
I noticed a minor typo, ngaytxoa: vosìpxì zisitä, ‘a twelfth of the year.’ should be zìsìtä.
I’m a bit confused by the spaw oe fwa… sentence. I’d expected spaw oel futa… but I guess the “should” sentence is stronger?
Thanks for pointing out the typos, ma Plumps, which I’ve now corrected.
The stylistic difference between sentences like (1) and (2) below is that (1) is more colloquial and conversational, whereas (2) is more formal and is more likely to occur in writing:
(1) Spaw oe, nga flayä.
(2) Spaw oel futa nga flayä.
In (1), “Spaw oe” is acting somewhat like an adverbial phrase–“in my belief,” “according to my believing”–rather than like a matrix clause. The grammar is admittedly a bit “loose,” but it’s fine for conversation and informal writing.
Tam, furia nga law si, ngaru irayo si oe.
Actually, you did so in the original post—I should read more carefully 🙂
Ahh…
The infix ‹ats› would also cover some of the epistemic senses, too, kefyak?
Srane. For example, a sentence like “Po zaya’atsu ye’rìn” could convey the idea of “He should probably be here soon, but I’m not certain of it.”
Sweylu txo oe fì’ur tivìng nari krr a oe tìkangkem ke si. 🙂
Ma Karyu, mipa lì’uri ngari irayo seiyi oe nìtxan. 🙂
Irayo nìtxan! Slä oeru lu mesìpawm. Sweylu lu kemlì’u, ha srake tsun fko sivar hemlì’uvit fìlì’umì? Txo srane, fpìl oel futa tsaw lu sweyl●u, kefyak?
Muvea tìpawm lolu teri lì’fyavi alu Spängaw oel futa po kolä lu kxeyey. Tì’efumì oeyä, tsaw zene livu Spängaw oel futa po kolä a fì’u lu kxeyey. Rutxe ftxey tsari lu tìkin fuke?
Ngian fìfmawnìri lesar oe ‘efu ye sì nitram nìngay 🙂 Irayo!
Eyawr nìwotx, ma Kemaweyan. Irayo ngaru!
1. Srane, tsun fko sivar hemlì’uvit mì lì’u alu sweylu, ulte srane, klltseng lu 2, 2. Natkenong: sweylolu, sweylayängu. Slä mì tampxì krrä, ke sar fkol kea hemlì’uvit fìlì’umì.
2. Ngaru tìyawr, ma tsmukan. Tsalì’fyaviri fko zene sivar lì’ut alu fì’u melo. Narmew oe pivlltxe san Spängaw oel futa fwa po kolä lu kxeyey sìk. (Fìlì’fyavì na lì’fyavì ngeyä nìlaw lu teng.) Slä ’en si oe, tsamelì’u alu futa fwa oeru yayayr lolatsu, ulte lì’ut amuve oel tswola’. Ngaytxoa. 🙂 Kxeyey set zoslolu.
Irayo nìtxan, ma Karyu! Fì’u eltur tìtxen si nìngay. Ulte lolu oer tìpawm alahe. Ngal solar melì’ut alu futa sì fwa, slä srake tsun fko sivar tenga melì’ut nìtengfya? Natkenong:
[b]Omum oel futa futa oe kolä ngal spaw.[/b]
Tì’efumì oeyä tsaw eyawr lu, slä tunslu fwa lu koren a ke smon oer.
Forgive me for answering in English, ma Kemaweyan, but I have an English example that may cast light on your question.
Your futa futa sentence is grammatically correct, but it’s not great in terms of style. Here’s a parallel in English: (1) and (2) below express exactly the same idea:
(1) It’s surprising that she left.
(2) That she left is surprising.
But if the “matrix” sentence is “He thinks that [ . . . ],” then putting (1) within the brackets sounds fine, whereas (2) sounds very awkward:
(3) “He thinks that that she left is surprising.”
It’s the same in Na’vi. A more natural version of your sentence would be, “Omum oel futa ngal spaw futa oe kolä.”
Irayo nìtxan! Set fì’u lu law nìwotx.
seysonìltsan nang
Irayo fpì aylì’u apxay mì kintrram.
ayLì’u sunu nìtxan.
New words again. Yeey.
I have been waiting on ‘should’ for a long time. Txana irayo ma ayoeyä karyu!
Txantsan 🙂 Now that we have ye, how would fko differentiate between that word and teya?
as far as I understand, “teya” is used for “happy” only in the idiom “oeru teya seiyi”. in all other times it’s just “full”.
ulte irayo seiyi nìtxan ma karyu. aylì’uri amip oe ‘efu ye.
ma karyu, lu oeru tìpawm lì’uteri alu sweylu. if I want to say something in the general sense using it, should the be omitted?
should the [WHAT] be omitted?
the iv infix. sorry. apparently when you write something in >< brackets it disappears.
It’s because it’s HTML. Try < for < and > for >.
WOW new words!! The language is getting Very very complete!! Good!
Ma Pawl fko ätxäle….Pefya ngal txula ayli’u? (i don’t if is correct..) 😀 So i ask you even in english…How do you construct your words? From what base of language do you made them? Irayo ma Pawl ulte Eywa ngahu!
some of the words are new roots.
there’s a committee on the learnnavi.org forum which manages anon submissions for words. Frommer has final say on if the words make it to the language and post about them here as a vocab update….as far as I’m aware.
Hello there, Pawl Frommer! I would love to write what I’m about to say in Na’vi, but I’m not quite to the place where I can write a whole lot yet. 🙂 I think it is so cool what you have created! In fact, I plan every friday night, which I call, “Na’vi Night”, as that time of week where I watch Avatar and practice working at my Na’vi! I can’t wait till the day when I will be fluent! You rock, Dude!
-hannah/Ninat
Oh yeah, and I have even started a blog where I can update on where I am in my Na’vi. Feel free to check it out!
Nice and good.
If I understand well about verb ”sweylu”, it means in Na’vi ”it’s best…”.