Kaltxì, ma frapo—
Here’s some information about reported speech that I hope you’ll find useful.
Reported speech
As you know, the main speech verb is plltxe, which can be both transitive and intransitive. When you’re reporting what someone said, the most idiomatic way to express that in Na’vi is to use plltxe intransitively, with san and sìk. You also know that Na’vi likes direct speech, where you’re quoting someone’s words exactly, rather than indirect speech. So:
Poltxe po san oe new kivä sìk.
‘He said, “I want to go.”’ OR ‘He said he wanted to go.’
As you see, there are two ways to do it in English but only one in Na’vi. In this structure, it might help to think of plltxe as “speak” and san as “say”: ‘He spoke, saying “I want to go.”’
Now how do you translate simple things like “What did she say?” and “She didn’t say that”?
For these, we use plltxe as a transitive verb. But what do you use for “what” and “that” in those sentences? The obvious candidates are peut and tsat respectively:
Poltxe pol peut?
‘What did she say?’
Ke poltxe pol tsat.
‘She didn’t say that.’
[For the record, I’ve used VSO order here, but of course other word orders are just as possible: Pol poltxe peut? Peut poltxe pol? And so on . . . ]
The two sentences above are acceptable Na’vi, but they’re not the best style. The reason is that they’re using forms of the catch-all word ’u, ‘thing’—you’re talking about saying athing. Na’vi prefers to be more specific: what you say is words. So more idiomatic versions of these sentences are:
Poltxe pol paylì’ut?
‘What did she say?’ [= What words did she say?]
Ke poltxe pol tsaylì’ut.
‘She didn’t say that.’ [=She didn’t say those words.]
(If you’re talking about a single word, it’s tsalì’ut.)
Transitive plltxe can also be used for reported speech:
Poltxe pol faylì’ut a oe new kivä.
‘She said, “I want to go.”’ OR ‘She said she wanted to go.’
Just as fì’ut a usually contracts in colloquial conversation to the single word futa, faylì’ut a contracts to fayluta:
Poltxe pol fayluta oe new kivä.
‘She said, “I want to go.”’ OR ‘She said she wanted to go.’
Note that whether you use the plltxe san . . . sìk or the plltxe fayluta structure, you still use direct speech, reporting the exact words the person said. But keep in mind that plltxe san . . . sìk is the more idiomatic choice in Na’vi and the one you should prefer for reported speech.
For ‘hear’ and ‘tell’ in this context, Na’vi again prefers a more specific object than ’u. What you hear is news or a report—i.e. fmawn. Fmawnit a contracts conversationally to fmawnta:
Stolawm oel fmawnta fo new hivum.
‘I heard they want to leave.’
Ngal poleng oer fmawnta po tolerkup.
‘You told me that he died.’
Reported and indirect questions
How do you say, “He asked where Neytiri was going”?
With pawm as with plltxe, there are both transitive and intransitive structures. The intransitive forms are by far the more common:
Polawm po san Neytiri kä pesengne (sìk).
‘He asked where Neytiri was going.’ (Literally: He asked, saying, “Where is Neytiri going?”)
One wrinkle: With pawm but not with plltxe, the san is optional. So this is also possible, and in fact quite common:
Polawm po, Neytiri kä pesengne?
The transitive use of pawm is possible but infrequent, since there’s another transitive verb that’s much more common in this structure:
vin (vtr.) ‘ask for, request’
This has wider applications than just asking a question—it can be used in place of ätxäle si:
Ätxäle si tsnì livu oheru Uniltaron.
Or:
Vuyin ohel Uniltaronit.
‘I respectfully request the Dreamhunt.’
Pol volin mipa tskalepit.
‘He asked for a new crossbow.’
To use vin with indirect questions, what’s the appropriate object? Well, what you’re asking for is a certain answer—a certain tì’eyng. So:
Volin pol tì’eyngit a Neytiri kä pesengne.
‘He asked where Neytiri was going.’ (Literally: He requested the where-is-Neytiri-going answer.)
Some conversational contractions of tì’eyng are:
tì’eyng + a > teynga
tì’eyngìl + a > teyngla
tì’eyngit + a > teyngta
So:
Volin oel teyngta Neytiri kä pesengne.
‘I asked where Neytiri was going.’
Ke omum oel teyngta fo kä pesengne.
‘I don’t know where they’re going.’
Teynga lumpe fo holum ke lu law.
‘It’s not clear why they left.’
Ulte sìlpey oe, faysìoeyktìng livu law nìwotx!
Edit: Corrected two errors pointed out in the comments: Nga –> Ngal, bow –> crossbow. Irayo!
Wou… so many more contracted subordinates. I couldn’t help but notice how fmawnta is also fmawn-ta, thus requiring context and a close look/listen.
Tìpawm: Does vin contrast with ätxäle si or are they synonyms, and if they do contrast, how?
Nìfrakrr, irayo seiyi ngengaru, ma Karyu Pawl 🙂
Yes, fmawnta comes from two different sources, with different uses. Our list of homonyms is expanding!
Vin vs. ätxäle si? Although there’s overlap, when you request a noun, you generally use vin; when you request that something take place, it’s more usual to use ätxäle si tsnì + subjunctive, although vin + futa is possible too. For example, if you asked for silence at a meeting:
1. Oel volin tìfnut.
2. Oe ätxäle soli tsnì livu tìfnu.
3. Oe ätxäle soli tsnì frapo fnivu.
4. Oel volin futa frapo fnivu.
All of those seem OK to me.
Right. I recently realized that I forgot about the transitivity difference. Kea ekxan 🙂
Wou! Fratxele faysìoeyktìngä leiu eltulor fìtxan nang! Srung satsi frapor. Seiyi irayo, ma Karyu.
Irayo, ma Prrton.
>Srung satsi frapor.
Tsafya sìlpey oe nìteng.
Txantsan!
Small nit: tskalep is listed as “crossbow”.
Yup! Fixed it. Thanks.
Is this intentional or should it have been Ngal poleng oer fmawnta….?
Also, I second the comment which Sxkxawng made above.
GREAT post which answered many questions I had on this matter. Seiyi irayo nìtxan ma Pawl.
Nìprrte, ma T.A.
And I fixed the pronoun. Thanks!
Furia mipa ‘upxare ngeyä zola’u, oeru teya si, ma Karyu. Irayo nìfrakrr.
Ngeyä faylì’uri seiyi irayo, ma S.M.
Ma Karyu!
Irayo oe seri ngaru nìngay 🙂
Stolawm oel fmawnta sute poltxe san tsa’upxare lu txantsan ulte srung sivi awngaru nìtxan sìk.
Fohu oe mllte.
Oe verar.. Slä tì’efumì oeyä, frapo verar vivin haya ayupxareti ngeyä.
‘Ivong Na’vi ! 🙂
Ta Ngeyä Numeyu,
Kxrekorikus
Irayo nìtxan, ma Kxrekorikus. Haya ‘upxare payähem ye’rìn. 🙂
Irayo nitxan ma Karyu! This is very usefull!!
Eywa ngengahu!
Ulte ngengahu, ma ‘Eveng.
Irayo, ma Karyu. Lesara fmawn lu nìngay!
Txantsan!
A quastion…How to pronunce “pesengne” [Peseɲe] or [Peseng.ne]? Is a very hard word!! 🙂 Irayo ma Karyu Eywa ngengahu!
probably [pɛ.ˈsɛŋ.ne]
I meant [pɛ.ˈsɛŋ.nɛ] sorry about the typo
Srane! Irayo ma Tirea!
Yes, I think so. It’s true that when two nasals come together like this, one often assimilates to the other. In this case, though, I don’t feel that happening, although I can’t tell you why. A comparable example in English would be “wingnut.” The ng and the n both maintain their identity in that word. No reason that wouldn’t happen in Na’vi as well.
Sure, I suspected that might be the case. However, doesn’t
[pɛ.ˈsɛŋ.ɛ.nɛ]
also exist? tseng == tsenge kefyak? tì’eyngìri irayo
Ngaru tìyawr. Pesengene is also possible–and perhaps easier to pronounce.
Irayo nitxan ma Karyu! Eywa ayngengahu! 🙂
Irayo nìtxan, ma Karyu Pawl nang
This is useful, and applicable to a translation project I am working on. I like the new attributive contractions. That is one of my favorite cool things about Na’vi1
Cool you find it cool!
Ma Pawl!
Ngeyä ‘upxarerì amip oeru teya si frakrr. 🙂
Irayo, ma Kamean.
late but relevant question:
are plltxe, Peng, and pawm ditransitive, being able to use both direct and indirect objects? what’s the real way to say, “He asked me, ‘are you learning to speak na’vi?'” Or “I asked you that yesterday.”, and their counterparts with ‘told’ in place of ‘asked?