Learn Dothraki and Valyrian
Learn Dothraki => Dothraki Language Updates => Topic started by: ingsve on May 17, 2011, 09:36:05 pm
-
We have started assigning which nouns are animate and which are inanimate but there are still a lot of nouns where we don't know if it's animate or not. This thread will be a place to try and figure this out.
David has provided some general phonetic rules that determine animacy:
animate:
-ak
-asar, -eser, -isir, -osor
infinitive
inanimate:
-i (diminutive)
-(s)of (augmentative)
ath-(z)ar
-(i)kh
-eyya
compounds
Having removed all words that fall into any of these categories we are left with the following list:
vizhad silver
addo ajjalani midnight
ador chair
ahesh snow
asavva sky
ase word
ave father
ayena bell
azhasavva blessing
azho gift
chare ear
chiftik cricket
chiori woman
dorvi goat
dosh khaleen group of widowed khaleesi
dothraki The dothraki people ”the riders”
esshey roof
eveth water
fire ring
foth throat
gamiz rice
gende rip
gizikhven candy
hadaen food
haesh spawn
hatif face
havazh sea
heth rim
hrakka white lion
hranna a type of grass
hrazef horse
idrik leader of the hunt
jalan moon
jalan qoyi harvest moon
jano dog
jaqqa rhan ”mercy men” not litteral
jesh ice
jorok corn
khal leader, king
khalakka prince, son of khal
khaleesi queen
khas group of bodyguards, protectors
kher flesh
loqam arrow
maegi wise, sorceress of black magic
mawizzi rabbit
mithri rest
nhare head
noreth hair
orvik whip
qazer apple
qeso basket
qosar spider
rakh boy, lamb
rhae mhar Sore-foot
rhaesh land, country
rhaggat cart
riv tip
rizh son
sajo steed
san heap, pile, much
shierak qiya comet, bleeding star
shiqeth iron
shor garment mainly worn by women
tih eye
tikkheya verb
vado turnip
vaes city
vezh stallion
vikeesi slang for annoying woman.
voji people
vort tooth
zande satchel, sack
zhaqe bass
zhavvorsi of the dragon
zir bird
What we need to do now is find out some way to determine which of these are inanimate or animate. One way to do this is to look at example sentences. The easiest way is to find a sentence where the word is used as the object of a sentence. If the noun ends in -es or -is it will be animate otherwise it's inanimate. Also the genitive ending for words that end in a vowel is also a clue. Inanimate nouns will only have -i even after a vowel but animate nouns will instead have -si. Animate nouns also have various declensions for plurals of the ablative and allative so any word ending with a vowel that ends in -saan or soon rather than just -aan or -oon will be animate. Also any instance of the endings -(s)oa or -(s)ea will also be animate.
-
Maybe this is somewhat of a noobish question. Would things that are alive be automatically animate (many in the exception list)? Or is animate/inanimate a linguistic thing?
-
Maybe this is somewhat of a noobish question. Would things that are alive be automatically animate (many in the exception list)? Or is animate/inanimate a linguistic thing?
Well, David has created the language as a naturalistic language that has evolved over time and things tend to change over time. So there is some historical logic to what words are animate and which are inanimate but over time things have become jumbled to the point that you can't use things like that as a clear and fast rule. If you look at the word lekh for example it has two different meanings namely language and tounge. The strange thing however is that when it is used to mean language it is animate and when it is used for tongue it is inanimate. So there is an example that goes right against what you would probably have guessed.
-
Is David still in the political situation that he can't just tell you what the animacy is for each noun item? He has to know already to be able to generate translations, right?
I can't imagine that HBO cares about keeping that information secret. I'd be SHOCKED if they even understand the concept of what it is and its relationship to the complexities of the grammar.
Revealing this information could in no way endanger the unfolding of the story on screen. If the word is already 'out there', what harm could it be for the very few folks who are learning the language to know what the animacy designation is for 'released' nouns?
I understand that for some folks it might be really fun to 'unravel' the mysteries of the 'irregular ni' like a puzzle, but just asking him does not seem unreasonable to me either as an option for how to get the info. He can always just say "Sorry. Can't."
-
Well, he could but that would require time to go through it all one word at a time with him. He's not really the guy who would come in here and post it all on the forum. He said at one point that it would feel strange for him to interact at that level. There will be words that we will have to double check with him at some point but the more words we can figure out in other ways the better. We still only have around 350 words of a language that has over 2700 words created so far so the list of words to double check with him could get really long.
-
Well, he could but that would require time to go through it all one word at a time with him. He's not really the guy who would come in here and post it all on the forum. He said at one point that it would feel strange for him to interact at that level. There will be words that we will have to double check with him at some point but the more words we can figure out in other ways the better. We still only have around 350 words of a language that has over 2700 words created so far so the list of words to double check with him could get really long.
I understand his not wanting to be engaged in this forum, but if I were he, I would have the animacy of all of my nouns noted in my own records. If I were sent the list that appears above, I (personally) wouldn't mind indicating the base form and animacy of all the nouns on the list—especially considering how critical it is that animacy be understood and factored into grammatically correct sentences. He seems to have built this feature into the language because he wanted to; as a point of personal pride and satisfaction. I read nothing in G0T that indicated to me that GRRM included this animacy concept overtly. I would think he'd be highly motivated to teach these things to anyone willing to pay attention and learn.
But, again, that's just my personal feeling. I don't know David, so it's a bit presumptuous of me to project.
-
Well, he could but that would require time to go through it all one word at a time with him. He's not really the guy who would come in here and post it all on the forum. He said at one point that it would feel strange for him to interact at that level. There will be words that we will have to double check with him at some point but the more words we can figure out in other ways the better. We still only have around 350 words of a language that has over 2700 words created so far so the list of words to double check with him could get really long.
I understand his not wanting to be engaged in this forum, but if I were he, I would have the animacy of all of my nouns noted in my own records. If I were sent the list that appears above, I (personally) wouldn't mind indicating the base form and animacy of all the nouns on the list—especially considering how critical it is that animacy be understood and factored into grammatically correct sentences. He seems to have built this feature into the language because he wanted to; as a point of personal pride and satisfaction. I read nothing in G0T that indicated to me that GRRM included this animacy concept overtly. I would think he'd be highly motivated to teach these things to anyone willing to pay attention and learn.
But, again, that's just my personal feeling. I don't know David, so it's a bit presumptuous of me to project.
Well, I'm sure he has it all written down in his own dictionary and I'm sure he would help out if we asked him. I just think the less words we need to have officially verified by him as opposed to deduced it would leave more time to find out other things when we do get him in an IRC chat etc.
-
I have decided to guess
vizhad silver ni
addo ajjalani midnight ni
ador chair ni
ahesh snow n
asavva sky n
ase word n
ave father n
ayena bell n
azhasavva blessing n
azho gift ni
chare ear n
chiftik cricket ni
chiori woman n
dorvi goat ni
dosh khaleen group of widowed khaleesi n
dothraki The dothraki people ”the riders” n
esshey roof ni
eveth water n
fire ring ni
foth throat n
gamiz rice ni
gende rip ni
gizikhven candy ni
hadaen food ni
haesh spawn n
hatif face n
havazh sea n
heth rim ni
hrakka white lion n
hranna a type of grass ni
hrazef horse n
idrik leader of the hunt n
jalan moon n
jalan qoyi harvest moon n
jano dog ni
jaqqa rhan ”mercy men” not litteral n
jesh ice ni
jorok corn ni
khal leader, king n
khalakka prince, son of khal n
khaleesi queen n
khas group of bodyguards, protectors n
kher flesh n
loqam arrow n
maegi wise, sorceress of black magic n
mawizzi rabbit ni
mithri rest ni
nhare head n
noreth hair ni
orvik whip n
qazer apple ni
qeso basket ni
qosar spider ni
rakh boy, lamb n
rhae mhar Sore-foot ni
rhaesh land, country ni
rhaggat cart ni
riv tip ni
rizh son n
sajo steed n
san heap, pile, much ni
shierak qiya comet, bleeding star n
shiqeth iron ni
shor garment mainly worn by women ni
tih eye n
tikkheya verb ni
vado turnip ni
vaes city n
vezh stallion n
vikeesi slang for annoying woman. n
voji people n
vort tooth ni
zande satchel, sack ni
zhaqe bass ni
zhavvorsi of the dragon n
zir bird ni (based on allegra)
-
Speaking of animate versus inanimate, could it be that some pronouns inherit animacy from the words they denote to? I tried to puzzle why '...ast chiori fini zirisse oggoes dorvoon...', but 'Mawizzi Fin Zal Kemolat ma Yesisoon'. Fini and fin seem to serve very similar role, and the best explanation for the difference I can come up is that mawissi is an inanimate noun (as we indeed suspect) and thus fini takes an inanimate form.
If that were true, we would have one more indicator for determining animacy.
-
If that were true, we would have one more indicator for determining animacy.
Very clever!!
Such a puzzle, this language!
-
Such a puzzle, this language!
It is! And we must hurry in solving everything we can, too, because any day Peterson might publish the comprehensive guide to grammar and vocaburaly and spoil the whole fun.
Seriously, though, there are better and worse reasons to keep us in the ...not quite dark...dusk maybe, all of them still valid. As I've said before, I do really enjoy the relative lack of knowledge.