Na'vi/Verbs

Naʼvi verbs are conjugated for but not for. That is, they record distinctions like "I am, I was, I would", but not like "I am, we are, s/he is". Conjugation relies exclusively on es, which are like suffixes but go inside the verb. "Hunt", for example, is táron, but "hunted" is toláron, with the infix ‹ol›.

Infixes
There are two positions for infixes: between the consonant and vowel of the first syllable, and between the consonant and vowel of the final syllable. For example, the phonetically simple verb káme "see into, understand", and the more complicated steftxaw "examine", take the first and second position infixes ‹ol› and ‹uy› as follows:


 * {|class=wikitable

! !!Root !! position 1 !! position 2 !! positions 1 and 2 !Form !Parsed !Form !Parsed
 * rowspan=2|káme||koláme||kámuye||kolámuye
 * k‹ol›ame||kam‹uy›e||k‹ol›am‹uy›e
 * rowspan=2|steftxáw||stoleftxáw||steftxuyáw||stoleftxuyáw
 * st‹ol›eftxaw||steftx‹uy›aw||st‹ol›eftx‹uy›aw
 * }

Note that the infix comes directly before the vowel, and so after any consonant cluster like the st and ftx in ste-ftxaw. The infix also occurs before whatever functions as the vowel, including ll and rr. For example, the ‹ol› inflection of fŕrfen "visit" is folŕrfen.

In monosyllabic words like lu "be", si "do", new "want", and tspang "kill", however, all infixes appear in that one syllable, retaining their relative order:


 * {|class=wikitable

! !!Root !! position 1 !! position 2 !! positions 1 and 2 !Form !Parsed !Form !Parsed
 * rowspan=2|néw||noléw||nuyéw||noluyéw
 * n‹ol›ew||n‹uy›ew||n‹ol›‹uy›ew
 * rowspan=2|tspáng||tspoláng||tspuyáng||tspoluyáng
 * tsp‹ol›ang||tsp‹uy›ang||tsp‹ol›‹uy›ang
 * }

Moreover, when the vowel of the infix matches the vowel of such a verb, it may look like a suffix: luyu "be" (l‹uy›u, not *lu-yu), sivi "do" (s‹iv›i, not *si-vi). This is clearer in speech than in writing, because the stress stays on the root vowel: luyú (not *lúyu), siví (not *sívi). Similarly when a penultimate syllable mirrors an infix: lónu "release", lolónu "released" (l‹ol›onu, not *lo-lonu).

If there is no initial consonant, the infix still comes before the vowel:


 * Tsampongut Tsuʼteyl iveyk.


 * tsam-pongu-t||Tsuʼtey-l||‹iv›eyk
 * war-party-||(name)-||lead‹›
 * }
 * "Tsuʼtey will lead the war party."
 * "Tsuʼtey will lead the war party."

In first position more than one infix may occur. When both convey temporal information, they fuse together (see below); however, when one infix has a more concrete function, such as a reflexive (acting on oneself), then it precedes the temporal infix(es). Adding such a "pre-first" infix ‹us› to the words above, and filling all three slots, we get:


 * {|class=wikitable

!Root !Form !Parsed
 * káme||steftxáw||néw||tspáng||éyk
 * kusolámuye||stusoleftxuyáw||nusoluyéw||tspusoluyáng||usoluyéyk
 * k‹us›‹ol›am‹uy›e||st‹us›‹ol›eftx‹uy›aw||n‹us›‹ol›‹uy›ew||tsp‹us›‹ol›‹uy›ang||‹us›‹ol›‹uy›eyk
 * }

However, it is rare to encounter forms this complex.

Pre-first position: Valency
The "pre-first" infix position is taken by infixes for non-temporal distinctions such as (changing the number of arguments of the verb).


 * {| class=wikitable

!  !   !   !
 * us
 * awn
 * äp
 * eyk
 * }

The participles are active, as in ikran atusaron "a hunting banshee" and ioang apuslltxe "a talking animal", and passive, as in yerik atawnaron "a hunted hexapede" and aylìʼu apawnlltxe "spoken words", from taron "hunt" and plltxe "speak".

The active participial infix us is found in forms such as kérusey "dead", from ke "not" and rey "live" (that is, "not-living"), and txántslusam "wise", from txan "much" and tslam "understand" (that is, "much-understanding"). The passive awn is found in nìawnomum "as is known", from omun "know" and the adverbial prefix nì-. Like their English translations in -ing and -en, Naʼvi participles have characteristics of both verb and adjective, and may modify a noun: ruséya túte "a living person", túte atslusám "an understanding person".


 * Hetuwongìl awngeyä swotut skaʼa, fte kllkivulat keruseya tskxet.


 * ay+ke-tute-wong-ìl||awnga+yä||swotu-it||skaʼa||fte||kllte+k‹iv›ulat||ke-r‹us›ey-a||tskxe-it
 * +not-person-alien-||we.+||sacred.place-||destroy||so.that||earth+dig‹›||not-live‹›-||rock-
 * }
 * "The aliens destroy our sacred place to dig up dead rock."
 * "The aliens destroy our sacred place to dig up dead rock."

Naʼvi participles only work as adjectives, not as nouns. That is, rusey translates "living" in "the living earth", but not in "the living is good here". For this latter nominal (noun) meaning, add the prefix tì-:


 * Korén aʼáwve tìruséyä ʼawsiténg
 * "The first rule of living together" (the Golden Rule)

Tìrusey "living" is distinct from tìrey "life", as in mì sìrey "in (my) life". While the existence and exact meaning of tì- derivatives is unpredictable, tì- ‹us› gerunds are regular, and may be used with any verb.
 * koren||a-ʼawve||tì-r‹us›ey+yä||ʼawsiteng
 * rule||-first||-live‹›+||together
 * }
 * }

Likewise, the participle is not used for adverbs. Whereas in English one may say "she ran away laughing", in Naʼvi that would be "she ran away while (she was) laughing", with tengkrr "while" and the imperfective h‹er›angham for "(she was) laughing".

A indicates that the subject performs the action on his or her self. For example, oe yur is "I wash (something)", and oel yur kìʼongit is "I wash the (sp.) fruit", whereas "I wash myself" is reflexive óe yäpúr (y‹äp›ur), not transitive *oel yur oeti. Win is "fast", win si is to make fast (that is, to rush or hurry something), and win säpi is to make oneself fast (that is, to rush or hurry along).

A makes an intransitive verb. For example, latem means "change" in the sense that 'something changes'; but to actively change something is leykatem. "To begin" is similar:


 * Sngoläʼi (sng‹ol›äʼi) tìkangkem "the work began"
 * Oel sngeykoläʼi (sng‹eyk›‹ol›äʼi) tìkangkemit "I began the work"

In some cases, the causative requires a different English translation, such as sleyku "produce" from slu "become".

However, there are other strategies for while "feed" is a causative translation of yom "eat", if the meaning of feeding is providing food, the Naʼvi word is not yeykom "make eat" but yomtìng "give (tìng) "eat".

The use of the causative depends on the meaning and transitivity of the verb; see the for details.

First position: Tense, aspect, and mood
Following these, but still in the penultimate syllable, are infixes for tense, aspect, and mood. With one exception (the subjunctive after a modal verb, see below), these are optional. That is, they are used to clarify things such as tense, but tend to be dropped when they can be understood from context.

These appear after the previous set of infixes. So with the future infix ‹ay›, "they will wash themselves" is fo yäpayúr (y‹äp›‹ay›ur).

Tense
is the easiest of these concepts for an English speaker. However, whereas English has three tenses, past present and future, Naʼvi has five, with the addition of a recent past ("just did") and an immediate future ("about to do"):


 * taron [hunt] "hunts"
 * t‹am›aron [hunt‹›] "hunted"
 * t‹ìm›aron [hunt‹›] "just hunted"
 * t‹ìy›aron [hunt‹›] "is about to hunt"
 * t‹ay›aron [hunt‹›] "will hunt"

Naʼvi past and future are used for general statements about events in the past or future, as in English; they are not necessarily remote in time. There is no absolute timeframe involved; whether something is considered recent or immediate depends on the judgement of the speaker. An example of the immediate future ìy is nì-Ìnglìsì p‹ìy›lltxe oe "I'll speak in English now", at which point the speaker switches to English, or tìyetxaw oe "I'll be right back".

More than one tense may be used in a verb. For instance, the recent past and immediate future double up in,


 * Oel pot tspìmìyang.


 * Oe-l||po-t||tsp‹ìm›‹ìy›ang
 * I-|| s/he- ||kill‹›‹›
 * }
 * "I was just about to kill him."
 * "I was just about to kill him."

Aspect

 * unmarked taron "hunts"
 * imperfective t‹er›aron "hunts, hunting"
 * perfective t‹ol›aron "hunts, hunted"

is a more difficult concept. There are two in Naʼvi, a, used when one views the action as a simple event, as if one were on the outside of the action looking in; and an , used when one views the action as having some component structure or flow, as if one were inside with the action. This distinction is not easily found in English, but there are parallels. For instance, if I were to say, "I went to the bookstore," your response is likely to be something like, "so? what did you get?". This is because I presented the event as a simple whole&mdash;perfective&mdash;and the implication is that we've now moved on to the next thing that happened. However, if I were to say, "I was going to the bookstore," your response is more likely to be, "and? what happened on your way?". This is because I presented the event as open ended&mdash;imperfective&mdash;and the implication is that we are still dealing with what happened during that event, even though it's the same event in both cases.

Even closer are constructions based on verbs of perception, such as "I saw him sit for an hour", with "sit" in the perfective (he sat for an hour, and I witnessed the whole event), and "I saw him sitting for an hour", with "sit" in a kind of imperfective (he sat for some time, of which I witnessed an hour&mdash;an internal portion of the event). Or more vividly, if more violently, "I saw the accused stab the victim" (I saw the crime in its entirety; I'm presenting it as a point in time) and "I saw the accused stabbing the victim" (I saw a part of the action as I passed by). In Naʼvi, however, aspect may occur on the main verb, and may take place in the past, present, or future. An example of the Naʼvi perfective is tsl‹ol›am "got it" or "understood", from tslam "understand"—the (unmarked) tense is either present tense or irrelevant; the point being communicated is that the understanding is a complete event, a point in time. An example of the imperfective is t‹er›ìran ayoe ayngane "we are walking your way"; here the action is in process, a current in time. Although the English translation suggests present tense, the Naʼvi could actually be past or future: "we were walking your way (past imperfective) when we (suddenly) got it (past perfective)".

Tense and aspect need not be marked when they have been established, or if they can be understood by context. For example, in
 * Oel hu Txewì trram naʼrìngit tarmok. Tsoleʼa ...


 * Oe-l||hu||Txewì||trr-am||naʼrìng-it||t‹a‹r›m›ok.||Ts‹ol›eʼa ...
 * I-||with||(name)||day-||forest-||occupy‹‹››||see‹›
 * }
 * "Yesterday I was with Txewì in the forest, (and we) saw ...",
 * "Yesterday I was with Txewì in the forest, (and we) saw ...",

the first clause sets up the context of the past tense, so the verb 'saw' can be marked as simply perfective, not as past perfective. However, both may be made explicit, and in such cases aspect is combined with the tense infixes:
 * recent-past imperfective oe t‹ì‹r›m›aron "I was just hunting"
 * past imperfective oe t‹a‹r›m›aron "I was hunting"
 * recent-past perfective oe tsl‹ì‹l›m›am "I just got it"
 * immediate-future perfective oe tsl‹ì‹l›y›am "I'm about to get it"

As noted in the chapter on, verbs with syllabic consonants may be irregular when inflected for aspect. If the aspectual infix ends in the analogous simple consonant (ol for ll or er for rr), and the syllable is not stressed, then the illegal sequence *lll or *rrr reduces to a simple l or r, as in plltxé "speak", pefective *p‹ol›lltxe → poltxé. However, if the syllable is stressed, then the infix, which cannot be stressed, drops out, resulting in a homonym with the uninflected form, as in fŕrfen "visit", imperfective *f‹er›rrfen → fŕrfen.

Mood
There are four s in Naʼvi: an unmarked mood (the indicative) used when making an ordinary assertion, an used for making commands, a  used when one is stating something that is not certain, and an  to show that an action is purposeful. The imperative, as in English, has no affix: Kä! "go!" The subjunctive is little used in English, but is found in a few set expressions such as "if I were you" (not *am you), "God bless you" (not *blesses), "I move that the meeting be adjourned" (not *is adjourned), etc. The Naʼvi subjunctive is formed with the infix iv, but is much more common than in English, used whenever one wishes, fears, or suspects that something might or must be so, but cannot say that it is so. It is found for example in
 * Oeri tìngayìl txeʼlanit tivakuk


 * oe-ri||tì-ngay-ìl||txeʼlan-it||t‹iv›akuk
 * I-||-true-||heart-||strike‹›
 * }
 * "Let the truth strike my heart," literally "that the truth strike my heart."
 * }
 * "Let the truth strike my heart," literally "that the truth strike my heart."

It is equivalent to the infinitive in English to show that something is done for a purpose, as in
 * Sawtute zeraʼu fte fol Kelutralti skivaʼa


 * ay+taw-tute||z‹er›aʼu||fte||ay+po-ìl||kelku-utral-ti||sk‹iv›aʼa
 * +sky-person||come‹›||so.that||+s/he-||home-tree-||destroy‹›
 * }
 * "The humans are coming to destroy Hometree"
 * }
 * "The humans are coming to destroy Hometree"

The subjunctive is obligatory after s of obligation, ability, or desire, such as zene "must", tsun "can", and new "want". (See section Modal verbs below.) This is the only time that a tense, aspect, or mood marker is grammatically required. For example, in


 * Trram kä naʼrìngur fte tsun tivaron yerikit.


 * trram||kä||naʼrìng-ur||fte||tsun||t‹iv›aron||yerik-it.
 * day-||go||forest-||so.that||be.able||hunt‹›||hexapede-
 * }
 * "Yesterday (we) went to the forest so we could hunt a hexapede",
 * "Yesterday (we) went to the forest so we could hunt a hexapede",

the past tense on kamä "went" and subjunctive on tsivun "be able" have been omitted, but the subjunctive on tivaron cannot be.

There is some overlap between the Naʼvi subjunctive and the English, in that the if-clause may take the subjunctive:


 * Pxan livu txo nìʼaw oe ngari, tsakrr nga Naʼviru yomtìyìng


 * pxan||l‹iv›u||txo||nì-ʼaw||oe||nga-ìri||tsa-krr||nga||naʼvi-uru||yom-t‹ìy›ìng
 * worthy||be‹›||if||-one||I||you-||that-time||you||people-||eat-give‹›
 * }
 * "Only if I be worth of you, will you then feed the people."
 * "Only if I be worth of you, will you then feed the people."

The subjunctive is also used as an to request that someone do or be allowed to do something, by expressing one's wish that they do it, as in,


 * Tivìran po ayoekip


 * t‹iv›ìran||po||ay-oe-kip
 * walk‹›||s/he||pl-I-among
 * }
 * "Let her walk among us[],"
 * "Let her walk among us[],"

and it is used to give permission, for instance in responding with p‹iv›lltxe "speak!" ("may you speak!") when someone announces they have something to say, or sp‹iv›aw oeti rutxe "please believe me". This is similar to the imperative.

There is no infix for a true imperative:
 * Kä! Kä! "Go! Go!"
 * Pot lonu! "Release him!"
 * Ikranti makto. ʼEko taʼem "Take the banshee. Attack from above."

The pronoun may be stated overtly:
 * ʼAwpot set ftxey ayngal


 * ʼawpo-t||set||ftxey||ay-nga-l
 * one-||now||choose||pl-you-
 * }
 * "Now you choose one"
 * "Now you choose one"

Negative imperatives (s) are conveyed with räʼä "don't!":
 * Txopu räʼä si! "Don't be afraid!"
 * Tsakem räʼä si! "Don't do that!"

Instead of the bare root of the imperative, the subjunctive may be used in its optative role to make what was historically a request or polite command, though the distinction is no longer maintained:


 * Aynga neto rivikx!


 * ay-nga||ne-to||r‹iv›ikx
 * -you||to-away||move‹›
 * }
 * "(May you all) step back!"
 * "(May you all) step back!"

Similarly with the prohibitive:


 * Neto räʼä kivä "Don't go away!"

The intentional mood is used for planned actions, contrasting with the (indicative) for things that one has no control over. It is only attested in the future tenses.

Other
Other reported temporal and aspectual forms include tovaron, tevaron, telaron, tairon. Their meaning is not known, and tairon at least would appear to be spurious, as the infix does not occur in its normal position.

Two of the infixes are known elsewhere: they are suffixes in trram "yesterday" and trray "tomorrow", from trr "day", and in txonam "last night" and txonay "tomorrow night" from txon "night".

Fused infixes
When tense, aspect, and mood infixes occur together, they fuse: The consonant of the aspect infixes within the tense, as recent past-imperfective ‹ìrm› in tìrmaron "(I) was just hunting", from ‹ì‹er›m›; or the consonant of the tense or aspect infixes within the subjunctive mood:

The expected future subjunctive *iyv, however, is a problem, as *iy is not a possible syllable coda in Naʼvi. This is solved by inserting an vowel e: ‹iyev›; moreover, in the common expression kìyevame "see (you) soon", there is a degree of vowel, and both ‹iyev› and ‹ìyev› are acceptable forms of this inflection. Note that because the vowel distinctions of the future and past tenses are lost, there are only three tenses rather than five in the subjunctive mood. Three-way combinations of tense, aspect, and mood (the dashes in the right-hand table) do not occur.

Although the intentional mood is only attested in the future, it is possible that it may be used for the past or present, perfective or imperfective, or even in the subjunctive, though this would require an epenthetic vowel the way the future subjunctive does, or a compound as in compound tense.


 * Ayngati hasyawnu ayoel


 * ay-nga-ti||h‹asy›awnu||ay-oe-ìl
 * -you-||protect‹.›||-I-
 * }
 * "We will protect you."
 * "We will protect you."

With the negative, it indicates an intention that something not happen:


 * Tafral ke lìsyek oel ngeyä keyeʼungit.


 * ta-fì-ral||ke||l‹ìsy›ek||oe-ìl||nga-yä||ke-yeʼung-it
 * from-this-reason||not||obey‹.›||I-||you-||in-sanity-
 * }
 * "Therefore I will not heed your insanity."
 * "Therefore I will not heed your insanity."

The intention is that of the speaker, regardless of the subject of the verb:


 * Nga kasyä


 * nga||k‹asy›ä
 * you||go‹.›
 * }
 * "You shall go."
 * "You shall go."


 * Ke zasyup lìʼOna ne kxutu a mìfa fu a wrrpa.


 * ke||z‹asy›up||lìʼOna||ne||kxutu||a||mì+pa||fu||a||wrr-pa
 * not||fall‹.›||(name)||to||enemy||||in+side||or||||out-side
 * }
 * "The lʼOna will not perish to the enemy within nor to the enemy without."
 * "The lʼOna will not perish to the enemy within nor to the enemy without."

Second position: Affect
The second (final) infix position is taken by infixes for : Speaker attitude, whether positive or negative; formality; and to mark for uncertainty or indirect knowledge.


 * {| class=wikitable

!  !   !   !
 * + Naʼvi affect
 * ei
 * äng (äg)
 * uy
 * ats (ac)
 * }

For example, in the greeting in the section on nouns, Oel ngati kameie "I See you", the verb kame "See" is inflected positively as kam‹ei›e to indicate the pleasure the speaker feels in the meeting. In the subsequent sentence, Oeri ontu teya längu "My nose is full [of his smell]", however, the phrase teya lu "is full" is inflected negatively as teya l‹äng›u to indicate the speaker's distaste at the experience. The affect can also be more indirect, as in,


 * Ngaytxoa, fìpänuti oeyä tswolängaʼ oel.
 * "Sorry, I forgot this promise of mine."


 * ngay-txoa||fì-pänu-ti ||oe-yä||tsw‹ol›‹äng›aʼ||oe-ìl
 * true-forgiveness||this-promise-||I-||forget‹›‹›||I-
 * }
 * }

The formal infix, which is used in ceremonial contexts, goes with the formal pronouns, though the reverse does not always hold: Ngenga ... l‹uy›u set "You are now ...".

Only one affect inflection may be used per verb, so the choice depends on the speaker's priorities. For example, once formality is established, the ceremonial infix can be dropped, clearing the way for other affectual inflections even if the formal pronouns continue to be used.

Although only one affect infix may appear, they may co-occur with first- or second-position infixes in the penultimate syllable:


 * oe t‹ìrm›ar‹ei›on [hunt‹.›‹›] "I was just hunting": The speaker is happy about the experience, whether due to success or just the pleasure of the hunt.
 * po t‹ay›ar‹äng›on [hunt‹›‹›] "he will hunt": The speaker is anxious about or annoyed by the prospect.

The evidential indicates uncertainty or indirect knowledge, as in,


 * Fpìrmìl oel futa aynga natsew tsiveʼa fìʼut.
 * "I was just thinking that you might want to see this."


 * fp‹ìrm›ìl||oe-ìl||fìʼu-it-a||ay-nga||n‹ats›ew||ts‹iv›eʼa||fìʼu-it
 * think‹›||I-||this--||-you||want‹›||see‹›||this-
 * }
 * }

To reinforce the uncertainty, kxawm "perhaps" may be added.

Special verbs
A few verbs have grammatical in addition to lexical uses.

Be, have, and copulas
The verb lu is a, meaning that it links two concepts together (like an equal sign), as in


 * fo lu kxanì "they are forbidden (here)",

where it links a noun phrase and adjective;


 * Naʼviyä, l‹uy›u hapxì "(you) are‹› part of the People",

where it links two noun phrases ("you" being understood); and


 * tsahìk-u txele lu "the matter is for the Tsahìk".

It is the copula lu that makes a predicate out of an adjective:


 * kilvan angim "a long river",
 * kilvan ngim lu "the river is long".

Other verbs with this behavior include the copulas slu "become" and lam "seem".

Lu also functions as a verb of existence, equivalent to "there is" or "there are":


 * aungia l‹ol›u
 * "there was a sign"


 * ke fparmìl oel futa lu tute a tsun ...
 * "I didn't think there was anyone who could ...".

When used with&mdash;and generally preceding&mdash;a noun in the dative, it has the more specialized sense of "have", as in


 * Lu oeru ikran
 * "I have a banshee" (lit. "there is a banshee to me").

When used with a locative adposition, it shows existence in a place:


 * Paʼli lu uo utral.
 * "The horse is behind a tree; there is a horse behind the tree."


 * ʼAngtsìk lu lok ʼawkx.
 * "The hammerhead is close to the cliff."

However, there is a separate idiom for being within a location: the transitive verb tok "to occupy, to be in a place", as above in


 * Oel hu Txewì trram naʼrìngit t‹arm›ok
 * "Yesterday I was with Txewì in the forest",

where the location takes the accusative case rather than an adposition.

Do
Naʼvi has a basic verb si which means "do" or "make". Besides its basic use, as in kempe si nga? "what are you doing?", it is used in numerous expressions, and is the primary way of turning a noun into a verb:



Si forms idiomatic expressions with the organs of the senses:
 * tsam "war"|| ||tsám si "make war"
 * kélku "home"|| ||kélku si "dwell" (lit., "make (one's) home")
 * tsapʼálute "an apology"||  ||tsapʼálute si "apologize" ("make an apology")
 * iráyo "thanks"|| ||iráyo si / si irayo "thank"
 * lŕrtok "a smile"|| ||lŕrtok si "smile"
 * txópu "fear"|| ||txópu si "be afraid"
 * colspan=3|
 * lŕrtok "a smile"|| ||lŕrtok si "smile"
 * txópu "fear"|| ||txópu si "be afraid"
 * colspan=3|
 * txópu "fear"|| ||txópu si "be afraid"
 * colspan=3|
 * colspan=3|
 * nári "eye"|| ||nári si "watch out, be careful"
 * éltu "brain"|| ||éltu si "pay attention, quit goofing off"
 * }
 * éltu "brain"|| ||éltu si "pay attention, quit goofing off"
 * }

Si follows the noun, and though it may be separated from it (txopu räʼä si "Do not fear!"), the two words behave as an intransitive compound: The noun never takes the accusative suffix, and the subject of si never takes the ergative. When there is an object to the noun+si construction, it takes the dative, as in ngaru irayo si "thank you".

Si can also be used with adjectives, such as teya "full" in kato oeru teya si "the rhythm fills me (with joy)".

In citation form, the si in these set phrases is unstressed. However, it may acquire stress when inflected. For example, from tìsraw "pain", there are intransitive tìsraw si "be painful" and causative tìsraw seyki  "cause pain".

The noun or adjective may be dropped when context makes it clear:


 * Nga tsapʼalute soli srak?
 * "Have you apologized?"


 * Soli.
 * "I have."

Give
The verb "give", tìng, has a smaller number of idiomatic usages. It is combined with organs of the senses to indicate an attentive action of that sense. So from nari "eye" there is tìng nari ("tìnnari") "look at" (cf. tseʼa "see"), and from mikyun "ear" there is tìng mikyun ("tìmmikyun") "listen" (cf. stawm "hear"). Somewhat less idiomatic are tìng tseng "back down" (lit. "give place"), pänutìng "promise" (lit. "give a promise"), oeyktìng "explain why" (lit. "give the cause"), yomtìng "feed" (lit. "give to eat"), and teswotìng "grant" (based on an unattested root).

Directional verbs
Naʼvi has two verbs that indicate direction: kä "go" and záʼu "come". These may combine with other verbs to give them a sense of direction, what in linguistics is called 'andative' and 'venitive'. For example, ʼärìp is "move" (move something, as with the hand); from it are käʼärìp "push" (move something away) and zaʼärìp "pull" (move something closer). Similarly, múnge "convey" may be used as either "bring" or "take"; for "bring" specifically, it is combined with zaʼu to indicate direction toward the speaker: zamúnge. Similarly, kä combines with mákto "ride" for kämákto "ride out". These directional verbs are not restricted to combining with other verbs; kä is also attested with tsatseng "there" in käsatseng "out there".

Modal verbs
As in English, Naʼvi has s ('helping verbs') which have a distinct syntax from other verbs. These are basic verbs of obligation, ability, or desire, such as zene "must", tsun "can", fmi "try", and new "want". They are followed by a regular verb, which must take the subjunctive mood, whereas English would use the infinitive, as above in zene fko n‹iv›ume nìtxan "there is much to learn" and tsun tutet tsp‹iv›ang ko "they can kill a person, you know". Likewise oe new k‹iv›ä "I want to go" and fmayi oe ʼ‹iv›eyng "I will try to answer / try and answer". The subject is not repeated if it's the same for the two verbs, but is required otherwise: Oe new nga k‹iv›ä "I want you to go" (lit. "I want (that) you should go").

Note that the subject of the modal is intransitive regardless of the lexical verb:


 * Oe new yivom teylut.
 * "I want to eat teylu."

Also,
 * oe||new||y‹iv›om||teylu-t
 * I.||want||eat‹›||grubs-
 * }
 * }
 * Fmawnit menariyä ke tsun oe spivaw.
 * "I can't believe what my eyes are telling me."


 * fmawn-it||me+nari-yä||ke||tsun||oe||sp‹iv›aw
 * news-||+eye-||not||able||I||believe‹›
 * }
 * }

If there is an overt subject to the lexical verb, then it would be inflected for case as it would without the modal: Oe new ngal yivom teylut "I want you to eat teylu".

Compound verbs
In compound verbs, only the verbal root inflects. For example, zenke "mustn't" is an abbreviation of zene ke "must not", and so both first- and second-position infixes appear in the zen-. [needs confirmation] On the other hand, in pänutìng "promise", the verbal root is tìng "give", so all infixes appear in that syllable. In the case of a two-verb compound, such as yomtìng "feed" ("eat" plus "give"), all infixes appear in the final verb root, in this case tìng.