Template talk:User na-2
New translations for the templates
And like the others templates I made a translation for Template:User_na-2. I strictly follow Kayser's Grammar rules. I think we should use mo ‘good’ as the adjective describing the knowledge of Nauruan in template:User_na-2, because we already have: na-0 = no knowledge; na-1 = basic knowledge; na-2 = good knowledge; na-3 = very good knowledge; na-N = native speaker.
Here is the translation:
O mo an tsiet amune/ãtune ian Dorerin Naoero.
In order to make the translation more understandable, I glossed the text:
| O | mo | an | (ø)-tsiet* | amune/ãtune | ian | Dorer-in | Naoero |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.Ps.Sg.: it | good | Poss.Pron. his/her | Rel.-knowledge | this man/woman | in | language-3.Ps.Sg.Poss. | Nauru |
(*) itsiet ‘knowledge’ has to be in the relative form tsiet because of the possessive pronoun an → cf. "Nauru Grammar", p. 20.
So literally you would translate it as: "This man's/woman's knowledge in the Nauruan language is good." You can compare this translation with an example of Kayser's Grammar book, page 11:
Ekãow (no, nothing) aũra (their pl.) kamarar (thinking) mũñana (these) imin (things) o gokoro (living). → litt.: "There isn't the thinking of things which live.
"The animal has no intelligence".
By the way, in my opinion, the word isitsiet listed in Delaporte's dictionary is wrong. Just see: When you follow the rules of Kayser, you would have the verb tsiet ‘to know’ (which both Delaporte and Kayser use). Now you would transform this verb into a noun by using e- or i- in front of the verb (Kayser, page 13, § 18). You would get the noun itsiet, which we should use here in Wikipedia, too.--Jamovi 13:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)