Learn Dothraki > Beginners
Sentence Attempts
ingsve:
--- Quote from: Verak on May 01, 2011, 12:04:10 pm ---
Re:
Lekh Dothraki allayafa anna ma me san athnrojari.
Lekh Dothraki allayafa anna ma me sekke nroja.
Questions:
- Are they (both) grammatical?
- What do they mean?
- Is one more correct than the other?
- Is there no word for 'but' yet?
--- End quote ---
I would translate the sentences as:
Lekh Dothraki allayafa anna ma me san athnrojari.
I like dothraki and it much complexness. (Literally is would be "Language Dothraki pleases me and it heaps of complexness".)
Lekh Dothraki allayafa anna ma me sekke nroja.
I like dothraki and it is very complex.
I'm a little uncertain of how an adverb like sekke interacts with those built in copula words but I think this is correct. Is there another example of an adverb working on a verb yet?
At any rate I would say the second example is more correct. The second part of the first sentence is a bit strange.
No, there is no word for "but" as far as I can find.
ingsve:
--- Quote from: Verak on May 01, 2011, 12:18:01 pm ---
Anha tih meqosar ost allegre ma me drivo.
I saw the spider bite the duck and it died.
Hash me athjilar?
Which animal died?
--- End quote ---
Let's see. The literal translation would be: I saw that the spider bit the duck and it died. I guess that means the same thing as your translation.
As for who died that is a bit tricky. That even causes confusion in english doesn't it? Does the fact that we expect the target of a bite to die change the subject from the spider to the duck? If the sentence was "I saw the spider race against a duck and it won" I would think that the spider won. But if it was "I saw the policeman shoot the suspect and he died" I would assume it was the suspect that died. I think usually it is better to be less ambiguous in these types of sentences right?
Verak:
--- Quote from: ingsve on May 01, 2011, 02:36:16 pm ---
--- Quote from: Verak on May 01, 2011, 12:18:01 pm ---
Anha tih meqosar ost allegre ma me drivo.
I saw the spider bite the duck and it died.
Hash me athjilar?
Which animal died?
--- End quote ---
Let's see. The literal translation would be: I saw that the spider bit the duck and it died. I guess that means the same thing as your translation.
As for who died that is a bit tricky. That even causes confusion in english doesn't it? Does the fact that we expect the target of a bite to die change the subject from the spider to the duck? If the sentence was "I saw the spider race against a duck and it won" I would think that the spider won. But if it was "I saw the policeman shoot the suspect and he died" I would assume it was the suspect that died. I think usually it is better to be less ambiguous in these types of sentences right?
--- End quote ---
Yes. It is generally better to avoid this kind of ambiguity.
Is drivo correct for "died" in the past tense?
I also wonder if David is doing anything about ambiguity within the grammar. Some languages don't allow or do all they can to avoid this kind of ambiguity. English really doesn't care that much.
ingsve:
--- Quote from: Verak on May 01, 2011, 03:29:43 pm ---Yes. It is generally better to avoid this kind of ambiguity.
Is drivo correct for "died" in the past tense?
I also wonder if David is doing anything about ambiguity within the grammar. Some languages don't allow or do all they can to avoid this kind of ambiguity. English really doesn't care that much.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I think drivo is the correct word.
As for ambiguity, I know that there are several words that need to be understood in context. Just take a word like me that means both he, she and it so you would need to be explicit if there is a chance there will be confusion.
On the other hand. Have you seen Davids writing guide for english? http://dedalvs.com/guide/index.php
He's very aware of the fact that english is full of strange things and I would guess based on that that he would perhaps want to avoid ambiguity in the languages he creates.
He has also proposed his own spelling reform for the english language. http://dedalvs.com/petersonian.html
Verak:
--- Quote from: ingsve on May 01, 2011, 04:28:12 pm ---Yes, I think drivo is the correct word.
--- End quote ---
Good to know.
--- Quote from: ingsve on May 01, 2011, 04:28:12 pm ---As for ambiguity, I know that there are several words that need to be understood in context. Just take a word like me that means both he, she and it so you would need to be explicit if there is a chance there will be confusion.
On the other hand. Have you seen Davids writing guide for english? http://dedalvs.com/guide/index.php
He's very aware of the fact that english is full of strange things and I would guess based on that that he would perhaps want to avoid ambiguity in the languages he creates.
He has also proposed his own spelling reform for the english language. http://dedalvs.com/petersonian.html
--- End quote ---
I've seen LOTS of the things at his site, but never the things related to English.
Spelling reform is very interesting, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime due to the fact that it would undermine English’s linguistic dominance in the technology age. Pronunciations have diverged so significantly in Singapore, India, etc. that without the "standardized" spellings a lot of the intelligibility across geographic boundaries would evaporate.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version