Zun . . . Zel: Counterfactual Conditionals

Kaltxì, ma eylan—

Fìpostì mektsengur teya si. This post fills a gap in our understanding of Na’vi syntax: counterfactual conditionals. The counterfactual structure is a bit complicated, so we’ll go slow, and if necessary, we’ll have further clarifications in subsequent posts.

First, some terminology. What is a conditional sentence? Simply one in “if … then” form. For example, “If you build it, they will come.” In such sentences, the “if” part specifying the condition is called the hypothesis (or if you want to be very fancy, the protasis); the “then” part is the consequence (or apodosis). But there’s no reason for us not to stick to the simple terms “if-part” and “then-part.”

You’re very familiar with the most frequent words for ‘if-then,’ txo and tsakrr. Txo ngal tsat txivula, (tsakrr) fo zaya’u. (Tsakrr is often omitted.) But there’s another pair of words for if-then: zun and zel respectively. They’re used for counterfactual conditionals—that is, for if-then sentences where you’re talking about something that didn’t happen or isn’t the case.

For example, compare these two sentences:

(1) Txo zivup tompa, (tsakrr) ke tsun oe kivä.Tìng mikyun
       ‘If it’s raining, (then) I can’t go.’

(2) Zun zivup tompa, zel ke tsivun oe kivä.Tìng mikyun
       ‘If it were raining, (then) I couldn’t go.’

In (1), I don’t know whether it’s raining or not—maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. (I haven’t looked out the window.) If it is raining, then I can’t go. (Usual implication: If it’s not raining, I can go.) In (2), however, it is not currently raining. If it were raining, then I couldn’t go. But it’s not. (Usual implication: Therefore, I can go.) So (2) is talking about a hypothetical situation that we know to be untrue—that is, a counterfactual situation.

To understand the counterfactual system, note two things: first, you always use zun and zel for ‘if-then’ (unlike tsakrr, zel cannot be omitted); second, the verb forms are in the subjunctive—that is, they take the various infixes that contain v. There are 5 such infixes, each built on the pattern -i_v-:

-i_v- + ∅          –>        –iv

-i_v- + r           –>        –irv

-i_v- + m         –>        –imv

-i_v- + l            –>        –ilv

-i_v- + y           –>       *-iyv–      –>     –iyev– OR –ìyev

So those are the tools we have to work with. Now let’s look at both sentence parts in turn:

The ‘if’ part

A. Something that is not presently the case:

Zun livu oe Olo’eyktan . . .
‘If I were Clan Leader . . .’ (but I’m not)

Zun nga yawne livu oer . . .
‘If I loved you . . .’ (but I don’t)

Zun oe pxiset tirvaron . . .
‘If I were hunting right now . . .’ (but I’m not)

For these situations, we use either the simplest form of the subjunctive infix, –iv-, or the –irv– form to indicate ongoing action.

B. Something that was not the case in the past:

Zun limvu oe Olo’eyktan . . .
‘If I had been Clan Leader . . .’ (but I wasn’t)

Zun nga yawne limvu oer . . .
‘If I had loved you . . .’ (but I didn’t)

Zun nga fìtìkangkemvir hasey silvi . . .
‘If you had completed this project . . .’ (but you didn’t)

For these situations, we use either –imv– (if the past nature of the action is the most important thing) or –ilv– (if the emphasis is on the completion of the action). Often the choice between the two is arbitrary. Note that in counterfactuals there’s no special form for ongoing action in the past; you just have to tell it from the context. So Zun oe timvaron means either ‘If I had hunted’ or ‘If I had been hunting.’

C. Something that will not be the case in the future:

This one is relatively rare, but still possible:

Zun tompa ziyevup trray . . .
‘If it rained tomorrow . . .’ (although we know that of course it won’t)

Here too there’s no special form for ongoing action.

The ‘then’ part

A’. Something that is not presently the case:

. . . zel oe ngaru srung sivi set.
‘. . . then I would help you now.’ (but in fact I’m not helping you)

. . . zel oe ’ivefu nitram.
‘. . . then I would be happy.’ (but I’m not)

. . . zel oe rirvol pxiset.
‘. . . then I would be singing right now.’ (but I’m not)

B’. Something that was not the case in the past:

. . . zel oe ngaru srung silvi.
‘. . . then I would have helped you.’ (but I didn’t)

. . . zel oe ’imvefu nitram.
‘. . . then I would have been happy.’ (but I wasn’t)

. . . zel oe rimvol pxiset.
‘. . . then I would have sung/would have been singing.’ (but I didn’t/wasn’t)

C’. Something that will not be the case in the future

. . . zel fo sriyevew.
‘. . . then they would do a dance.’ (but they won’t)

The if- and then-parts can combine in different ways. Some examples:

A with A’:
Zun oe yawne livu ngar, zel ’ivefu oe nitram nì’aw.Tìng mikyun
‘If you loved me, I would be so happy.’
(but you don’t, and I’m not)

B with B’:
Zun oe yawne limvu ngar, zel ’imvefu oe nitram nì’aw.Tìng mikyun
‘If you had loved me, I would have been so happy.’
(but you didn’t, and I wasn’t)

C with C’:
Zun tompa zìyevup trray, zel fo srìyevew.Tìng mikyun
‘If it rained tomorrow, they’d do a dance.’
(but it won’t, and they won’t)

B with A’:
Zun ngal tsafnesyuvet timvìng oer, zel livu oe txur fìtrr.Tìng mikyun
‘If you had given me that kind of food, I would be strong today.’
(but you didn’t, and I’m not)

A with B’:
Zun ayoe livu tsamsiyu, zel tsakem ke simvi.Tìng mikyun
‘If we were warriors, we wouldn’t have done that.’
(but we’re not, and we did)

B with C’:
Zun nga srung silvi oer, zel ke kìyevä oe ne Wasyìngton kintrray.Tìng mikyun
‘If you had helped me, I wouldn’t be going to Washington next week.’
(but you didn’t, and I am)

One more wrinkle:

In the first three examples above—A with A’, B with B’, C with C’—the forms of the verb in both parts of the sentence are the same: livu/’ivefu, limvu/’imvefu, zìyevup/srìyevew. In such cases—and only in such cases—the verb in the zel-part of the sentence may optionally go into the root form, losing the subjunctive infixes. This simplification occurs very often in colloquial speech and frequently in more formal speech as well. Repeating the three sentences above in this simplified form:

Zun oe yawne livu ngar, zel ’efu oe nitram nì’aw.Tìng mikyun
‘If you loved me, I would be so happy.’

Zun oe yawne limvu ngar, zel ’efu oe nitram nì’aw.Tìng mikyun
‘If you had loved me, I would have been so happy.’

Zun tompa zìyevup trray, zel fo srew.Tìng mikyun
‘If it rained tomorrow, they’d do a dance.’

I think that’s plenty for one post. 🙂

Don’t worry if you don’t assimilate these structures immediately—it may take some time to get used to them. But you will.

Hayalovay, ma smuk.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Zun . . . Zel: Counterfactual Conditionals

  1. Tirea Aean says:

    I remember this being mentioned WAY back in the October 2010 meetup. Glad to see that a decision has been made about counterfactuals! 😀 This is very useful indeed.

    Now we can say:

    Zun oe nga livu…
    If I were you…

    This actually makes a lot of sense, every bit of it. Simple to remember for me. Irayo for the update. I’ll seeya at AvatarMeet 2013 ma Pawl!

  2. SGM (Plumps) says:

    … and we’ve come full circle from the nìrangal examples 🙂 Kosman nì’aw.

    Fìpostì lu txantsan lesarsì nìngay! Tsari irayo ngaru nìtxan!

    Am I right in assuming that all the verbs, either in the zen- or in the zel-part can take other infixes (where logical), e.g. mood as well?

    • Pawl says:

      Irayo, ma Plumps. Sìlpey oe, faylì’fyavi lesar lìyevu.

      And sure, you can use other infixes. I didn’t include them in the examples for simplicity.

  3. Le'eylan says:

    Oh, this is great! Very useful indeed 😀

    • Pawl says:

      Glad you think it’s useful, ma Le’eylan.

      Ngaru lu fpom srak? It’s been a long time! 🙂 Hope you’re well and happy.

  4. SGM (Plumps) says:

    How do we treat these constructs with questions?
    The srak poses no problem, I think. What about srake, does it come before or after zun/zel?

    Can thezun and zel sentences switch places? Or is the order fixed?

    • Tirea Aean says:

      I would think that it would be like this:

      Srake zun…zel…?
      Zun…zel…srak?

      Just like

      Txo…(tsakrr)…srak?
      Srake txo…(tsakrr)…?

      Just like txo and tsakrr are never(?) Seen backwards, neither would we see zun and zel backwards. That would make the most sense to me anyway.

      But yeah. I wonder what Karyu Pawl would say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *