General Category > General Discussion

The Lords Prayer thread

<< < (3/5) > >>

ingsve:

--- Quote from: Qvaak on March 29, 2012, 02:02:08 am ---
--- Quote ---khalasar shafki jadi
--- End quote ---
We have a word rhaesh, which is pretty good approximation of kingdom, IMO, but I think I like khalasar better. It's a good culturalization. I'm less sure about jadat. It's a literal translation, but sounds too concrete to me. Especially since khalasars can travel and thus don't need to metaphorically "come". Of course you might think of it literally even in English: the kingdom descending from the heaven, ie. moving here. I've always thought of it more as "to come into being", "to begin to exist". I might go with yolat.
And I'd use that newfound impersonal command thingie even here. So I'd propose
Yolates khalasar shafki.

--- End quote ---

How about vekholat? Wouldn't that mean "to begin to exist"?

Najahho:

--- Quote from: Qvaak on March 29, 2012, 02:02:08 am ---
--- Quote ---Actually yes, yes I was going exactly for that.
--- End quote ---
Alright. Sorry for not getting it. Why chomolat and not just chomat?
Edit: Ahh! "Me vafik, zhey khaleesi. Dothraki chomoe mae." from the series. How that hasn't made its way to the vocab. Still, I'm not convinced the meaning fits.

--- End quote ---

Why not? A formal imperative to replace a subjunctive. I think it works just fine. The "let's" construction seems too colloquial to me.


--- Quote from: Qvaak on March 29, 2012, 02:02:08 am ---...Thinking further about Zhey ave kishi fini vekha she asavva, I wonder if Zhey ave kishi fini vekhi she asavva would work - or be even better. A relative pronoun in a second person sentence seems a bit odd, but it works unproblematically in English (and in Finnish), so why not in Dothraki too.

--- End quote ---

This only if you actually need that verb there, which I'm not convinced about.


--- Quote from: Qvaak on March 29, 2012, 02:02:08 am ---
--- Quote ---khalasar shafki jadi
--- End quote ---
We have a word rhaesh, which is pretty good approximation of kingdom, IMO, but I think I like khalasar better. It's a good culturalization. I'm less sure about jadat. It's a literal translation, but sounds too concrete to me. Especially since khalasars can travel and thus don't need to metaphorically "come". Of course you might think of it literally even in English: the kingdom descending from the heaven, ie. moving here. I've always thought of it more as "to come into being", "to begin to exist". I might go with yolat.
And I'd use that newfound impersonal command thingie even here. So I'd propose
Yolates khalasar shafki.

--- End quote ---

Not sure about this. Isn't "rhaesh" more like "land, country"? It would in any case fail to give the feeling of the realm and its structure, so I prefer to err on the side of the culture. Maybe a compromise with "khalrhaesh", "rhaesh khali"?
Why use "yolat"? "be born"? Isn't that too much interpretation? All translations use "come", why not go by that? The fact that a khalasar can actually "come" might be just a happy event that would help this culture assimilate the prayer.


--- Quote from: Qvaak on March 29, 2012, 02:02:08 am ---
--- Quote ---dirge shafki ti* she sorfosor ven she asavva "Thy thought be done in earth as in heaven" ?
* somebody knows the full conjugation for tat? (I'm going for formal imperative here)
--- End quote ---
Tat should conjugate regularily save for the past singular, where there's that curious irregular epenthetic e at the beginning. Ti should indeed be the formal imperative. The end of the sentence sounds promising to me, though ven needs to be in front of both arguments. I'd change dirge to athzalar. It's just "hope" in the vocabulary, but as a nominalization of zalat, I think the meaning should be spot on. But all in all I'm not at all sure, how that "thy will be done" might work in dothraki. I'll hazard an uninspired guess:
Tates ki athzalari shafki, ven she sorfosor ven she asavva.

--- End quote ---

The parsing is almost always "sicut in caelo et in terra" even in Ancient Slavic, maybe "ven she sorfosor ma she asavva"?

ingsve:

--- Quote from: Niqqo on March 29, 2012, 07:05:25 am ---

--- Quote from: Qvaak on March 29, 2012, 02:02:08 am ---...Thinking further about Zhey ave kishi fini vekha she asavva, I wonder if Zhey ave kishi fini vekhi she asavva would work - or be even better. A relative pronoun in a second person sentence seems a bit odd, but it works unproblematically in English (and in Finnish), so why not in Dothraki too.

--- End quote ---

This only if you actually need that verb there, which I'm not convinced about.
--- End quote ---

The verb is definately needed. You can only use the non-verb construction for copula if you have a situation where "(pro)noun is noun". The preposition is not enough to change the meaning into (pro)noun is in noun, it only makes in ungrammatical.


--- Quote from: Niqqo on March 29, 2012, 07:05:25 am ---
--- Quote from: Qvaak on March 29, 2012, 02:02:08 am ---
--- Quote ---khalasar shafki jadi
--- End quote ---
We have a word rhaesh, which is pretty good approximation of kingdom, IMO, but I think I like khalasar better. It's a good culturalization. I'm less sure about jadat. It's a literal translation, but sounds too concrete to me. Especially since khalasars can travel and thus don't need to metaphorically "come". Of course you might think of it literally even in English: the kingdom descending from the heaven, ie. moving here. I've always thought of it more as "to come into being", "to begin to exist". I might go with yolat.
And I'd use that newfound impersonal command thingie even here. So I'd propose
Yolates khalasar shafki.

--- End quote ---

Not sure about this. Isn't "rhaesh" more like "land, country"? It would in any case fail to give the feeling of the realm and its structure, so I prefer to err on the side of the culture. Maybe a compromise with "khalrhaesh", "rhaesh khali"?
Why use "yolat"? "be born"? Isn't that too much interpretation? All translations use "come", why not go by that? The fact that a khalasar can actually "come" might be just a happy event that would help this culture assimilate the prayer.

--- End quote ---

I think rhaesh is fine. That's the word you would use in any other situation to translate the word kingdom and I don't see why this should be an exception. If you want to make it more bombastic then perhaps something like rhaeshof could also work.


--- Quote from: Niqqo on March 29, 2012, 07:05:25 am ---
--- Quote from: Qvaak on March 29, 2012, 02:02:08 am ---
--- Quote ---dirge shafki ti* she sorfosor ven she asavva "Thy thought be done in earth as in heaven" ?
* somebody knows the full conjugation for tat? (I'm going for formal imperative here)
--- End quote ---
Tat should conjugate regularily save for the past singular, where there's that curious irregular epenthetic e at the beginning. Ti should indeed be the formal imperative. The end of the sentence sounds promising to me, though ven needs to be in front of both arguments. I'd change dirge to athzalar. It's just "hope" in the vocabulary, but as a nominalization of zalat, I think the meaning should be spot on. But all in all I'm not at all sure, how that "thy will be done" might work in dothraki. I'll hazard an uninspired guess:
Tates ki athzalari shafki, ven she sorfosor ven she asavva.

--- End quote ---

The parsing is almost always "sicut in caelo et in terra" even in Ancient Slavic, maybe "ven she sorfosor ma she asavva"?

--- End quote ---

There are lots of translations that use a different parsing. The traditional swedish version is "Let your will be done so as in heaven so also on earth".
There is nothing wrong with ven she sorfosor ven she asavva, that's simply how you parse it in Dothraki.

Hrakkar:
for the khalasar vs rhaesh debate, here are some more thoughts (coming from an overtly Christian perspective, but the discussion here is very good). Khalasar refers to a moveable band of (presumably living) people. Besides move, the band can increase or decrease in number. It is dynamic, but it is physical. Rhaesh refers to the land, physical land that a khalasar might or might not be occupying.

Kingdom as used in this prayer, and as used by Jesus throughout the gospels really doesn't refer to a literal country or people, but more to a concept. It is referring to a state of being where God is in control. Thus a closer match would be a word for 'reign' or perhaps 'leadership'. Unfortunately, I drew a blank when trying to find a Dothraki term that expresses this idea.

Any thoughts?

Qvaak:

--- Quote ---How about vekholat? Wouldn't that mean "to begin to exist"?
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---Why use "yolat"? "be born"? Isn't that too much interpretation? All translations use "come", why not go by that? The fact that a khalasar can actually "come" might be just a happy event that would help this culture assimilate the prayer.
--- End quote ---
Jadat might well be the winner. If the word is not totally out of place, it's of course best to stick close to original. The way it's used in ye olde X.NOM Y.ALB expression gives me some trust that it at least might carry the right kind of metaphoric connotations. I just like musing over things. Vekholat, that ingsve proposes, might be a good alternative, much better than my yolat for sure.


--- Quote ---Why not? A formal imperative to replace a subjunctive. I think it works just fine. The "let's" construction seems too colloquial to me.
--- End quote ---
Umm. We still have problems hitting the same wave length. Chomat and chomolat are different words, both of which can be conjugated to formal imperative: chomi and chomo. I was wondering, why you used the one that wasn't on our vocabulary page. Both words mean more or less to respect. The former is stative, communicating a static state of affairs, eg. that I respect you. The latter is ...we have used a word 'dynamic'... it should communicate a change in the situation, an active deed. For example the Lhazreen women weren't generally respected, or considered respectable, so (as horrible as it is) it makes sense that the dynamic word was used. The name here, on the other hand, should have a permanent status of being respected, so I think the word must be chomat, if not vichomerat.

The "let's" expression may seem colloquial just because I wrote what little we knew about it in the wiki, and I'm no word smith. I've tried to update the explanation a bit now that we know more.
The problem with formal imperative is that it's rather unlikely the way it's used is grammatical. I think I have specifically asked about using imperatives in third person and got a 'no'. I can't swear I have, but there certainly has been conversation around the subject.
And the further problem is that while grammatically broken language sometimes works in poetic context, with these sentences there is an easy grammatical or near-grammatical way to interpret them, so there's little chance that the strange imperative syntax would be communicated to the audience.


--- Quote ---This only if you actually need that verb there, which I'm not convinced about.
--- End quote ---
Well, it's not impossible that it might work, but I'm quite convinced otherwise and so seem to be ingsve. Zhey ave kishi she asavva would sound fine to me, but when you throw in the relative pronoun, that just screams for some proper predicate. We have a few examples of vekhat being used to indicate location, even in such simple sentences as "Vo mawizzi vekho jinne," but I find no examples of a location adverb used for a solitary argument.


--- Quote ---There is nothing wrong with ven she sorfosor ven she asavva, that's simply how you parse it in Dothraki.
--- End quote ---
Aye. Dothraki uses words like ven, che or ma (also words like kash) usually in front of all the arguments. It's more a syntax thing than a semantical thing. In translation you can often just drop one of the words away: "ven she sorfosor ven she asavva" -> "on earth like in heaven"; "Kash anha adakh, kash heffof samvo." -> "While I ate, the jug got broken."


--- Quote ---for the khalasar vs rhaesh debate, here are some more thoughts (coming from an overtly Christian perspective, but the discussion here is very good).
--- End quote ---
Thanks! I try to be respecful. The whole exercise is a bit pointless otherwise.


--- Quote ---Khalasar refers to a moveable band of (presumably living) people. Besides move, the band can increase or decrease in number. It is dynamic, but it is physical. Rhaesh refers to the land, physical land that a khalasar might or might not be occupying.

Kingdom as used in this prayer, and as used by Jesus throughout the gospels really doesn't refer to a literal country or people, but more to a concept. It is referring to a state of being where God is in control. Thus a closer match would be a word for 'reign' or perhaps 'leadership'. Unfortunately, I drew a blank when trying to find a Dothraki term that expresses this idea.
--- End quote ---

I'm guessing khalasar is derived from khal and does not refer to just any band of people, but specifically to a group of people governed by a single khal. I'd guess comparing to kingdom hits quite close. Less kingdom as defined by the strip of land, more a kingdom defined by the loyal subjects, but kingdom nevertheless. Dothraki often tend to ridicule and detest the other ways of life than their own, so I think any idea of reign tied to land would sound less impressive than reign strictly tied to the people.
"Reign" or "leadership" would work, sure. When in doubt, strip the metaphore and go for the idea behind. But I think khalasar hits closer to the original wording and inherits most of it's connotations, so as long as it isn't proven unfit, I'm rooting for it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page