Messages

[vimithrerat]

I would say that you could just use the common rule/pattern of augmenting the beginning of the root word, in this case 'thirat', to make it transitive.
Anha thirak = I live/survive (vint.)
Anha atthirak mra okre anni = I live/inhabit in my tent (vtr.)

Yeah, I'm still not sold on using any word derived from "thirat" to mean "to inhabit." That could be the case, but it could easily be something like vimithrerat or vinevarat (< nevalat + Durative). Plus I already used "atthirat" to mean "to bring to life." Until we see an example of thirat or any derivative being used that way I'm disinclined to do so.

I like mahrazhof. I'll also be using this for a story in the Dothraki Atlas, where a giant fall in love with a mountain.

Yeah, I was originally just going to use nefilim from the original Hebrew, but I really liked how mahrazhof sounded!

Either use the meronymic or the resultive of 'kim', ancestor. Kimikh che kimmeya, depending on how you want to portray the importance of ancestors. 

Hmm, yeah, the meronymic could work. I also like haesh - "spawn" and I really like the derivation of Romanian "urmaș", "urmă" - track, mark; imprint; footprint + "-aș" diminutive, (shorhaesh?). But while I like that for Dothraki, I wouldn't use it since it's too big of a metaphorical jump for me to feel comfortable using it.

Ishish sajila akka.

Oh, I like sajila better!

Gen 6:14 wood - id?

Ido

Hmm, so do you think ido can be used as both noun and adjective?

Tricky, but I suggest okri: I little tent.  I'm thinking along the lines of a small, personal place for you to reside in.

Yeah, I had trouble with this one too. okri or just okre could work, with okrenegwin being used to mean "house."

I think you could take a loan word from PIE: pik 'pitch'. Dothrakify it and you either get 'fik' or 'tik'.

Nah, I want to maintain any borrowings in-world, so if I were to borrow a word it'd be from Valyrian. Besides, I suspect the Dothraki would have a word for 'pitch' or 'tar' since it's so readily available. It'd probably be related to the name of whatever tree is used to make it, or related to the verb "to melt," or "sap," etc. so maybe fotthaya < fotha "sapwood" or ivisikh < ivisat "to melt."

Agreed. Athneakar, athvohar m'athyathar.

And hey, the Dothraki have now entered the 3rd dimension! I wonder if mathematics can be incorporated later. . .

Woops, I added a superfluous l. Considering there isn't even a word for "number" in the current lexicon,  I think it'll be a while.

No that would be the stores and cabins under the deck. Essheya, "the top part", would be more appropriate since the Dothraki really would not have any specific nouns for the parts of a ship. You could also have "Erraeya", which would mean floor or ground.

Considering how many languages I found that derived their word for deck from "roof," "cover," etc., I think you're right, "essheya" our best bet.

Well what do you mean? Mahrazh and chiori are already the words for man and woman in Dothraki. However, if you're trying to express the idea of masculinity and femininity I get where you're coming from and agree with your translation.

Yup, "Fichi ma yeroon ei rho fisa, ma mahrazhven ma chioriven ki fekh..."
"Take with you every clean animal, male and female by seven..."

[annakholat]

Ma'th! Hatif sani kashi anha ray essa!

In Genesis 6 God get fed up with man's violent nature and decide to wipe them off the face of the earth! All but noah, that is, who "was a righteous man, blameless in his generation," commanding him to build an ark to escape the coming flood; Which brings me to some of the issues with translating this chapter:
missing were the follow words:
Gen 6:3 to abide, inhabit, live in
Gen 6:4 hero, giant, "great man" - mahrazhof - "great man"
Gen 6:9 descendent
Gen 6:9 righteous - jil - right, rightful, "righteous"
Gen 6:11 violence - verven > athvervenar
Gen 6:12 to be corrupt - rikholat - to rot; to be corrupt
Gen 6:12 to corrupt - rikholat > arriholat - to cause to rot, to corrupt
Gen 6:14 wood - id?
Gen 6:14 room
Gen 6:14 pitch(sticky, water-proofing substance)
Gen 6:15 length - neak > athneakar
Gen 6:15 width - voh > athvohar
Gen 6:15 height - yath > athyathar
Gen 6:16 deck(of a ship) - torga?
Gen 6:16 complete - malilat > ammalilat (realized the verb annakholat is a thing as I was writing this)
Gen 6:19 male - mahrazhven
Gen 6:19 female - chioriven

The rest are minor corrections to the previous chapters, in particular correctly conjugating verbs that should be in the negative and correcting the derived verbs sashekhihasolat > assashekhikhalat "to make covered in light; to light, give light" and assavevethat - "to cause to be covered in water, to flood." the details can be found in the attached document.

I still have no idea what you're saying with that

Asshekh anha nesok mevenak Valirakes ale Dothrakoon.
Today I learn(1s present) me-(prefix that introduces subordinate clauses) be similar (1s pres. vtr.) Valarian(s.acc.) more(adj.) Dothraki(s.abl.)
Today I learn that (I) am similar to Valeryian more from Dothraki.
Today I learn that I am more like a Valeryian than a Dothraki.
Admittedly not sure if that's how you make a comparison of two nouns since we haven't seen an example of it, but that's what I'am TRYING to say at least.

Grra! I demand secession from the union!

"If you raise the standard of rebellion, your green fields will be wash'd with the blood of your people and your country laid desolate by the flames of civil discord! If you attempt to pull down the pillars of the Republic, you shall be crush'd into atoms."

And my attempt to translate this cuz I thought it was a pretty bad-ass quote:

"Hash yeri ayyathi khiri nem aholi kisha, hash ramasar dahaan yeri nem vaffisa ki qoyi yanqosori yeri, rhaesh yeri nem veddavrasae ki vorsakhi athekelenazari! Hash yeri kis ohhari feshithis negwin kemikisiri, hash yeri akaffi vodaan."

ayyathat - raise
eddavrasalat - to make desolate, make useless
athekelenazar - kelen + negative + nominalizer - disorder, discord
feshith negwin - "stone trees" - pillar
kemikisir - alliance, confederation, union

Fini 'mevenak'?

me+(anha) venak. Asshekh anha nesok + me + Anha venak Valirakes ale Dothrakoon = Asshekh anha nesok mevenak Valirakes ale Dothrakoon.

Bravo! j'ai volu faire ceci pour l'espagnol, ceci faira l'effort plus facile!

["Anha dothra vaesaan aremekak."]

UPDATE: So after making a fool of myself on twitter, David J. Peterson was kind enough to let me know who purpose is expressed in Dothraki in dependent clauses. An abridged version of the conversation is attached below but basically you express purpose by placing the subordinate clause in the future tense. An example from David:

"Anha dothra vaesaan aremekak."
"I rode to the city to sleep."

And a second example approved by David:

"Anha tak jin arhelak yera."
I do this to help you.

I think it's safe to say we can add this under the Future Tense section of Verb Conjugation, or wherever the wiki editors find appropriate.

[tozarasi]

I figured it was unessecary since you also had "vaes vekh tozarasi", which would tell you that the lake exists beside the lake.  It would seem a bit redundant to say "Near the town existed beside the lake".

Ah, no, tozarasi is the subject, vekhat takes the subject in the genitive, so "Tozarasi vekha qisi vaes." is "the Lake is near the city." or "There is a lake near the city." and "Qisi rek vaes vekh tozarasi..." is "near that city was a lake..."

That may explain it  .  I guess if it's from the horses mouth I shouldn't question it.

yeah, the example he gave me was "Anha dothra vaesaan aremekak" - "I rode to the city to sleep."

Both the PDF and the mobile app have 'yalli' as an animate noun.  I guess by U.S. constitution rules, two thirds overrides the executive.

Ah, but the dialogue has:
Drogo S1E7: "Anha aqorisok chiories mori, vazzafrok yal mori, ma afichak vojjor samva Vaesaan Dothrak."
"I will rape their women, take their children as slaves and bring their broken gods back to Vaes Dothrak."

High Priestess S6E4: Kisha assilaki yanqosores, kisha qoraki chiories adavranazi, mori ayyoe yal kishaan.
We conquer a people, we take the best women, they bear us children.
And in pg. 89 of Living Language: Dothraki it is listed as i.n., class B. So yalle should be inanimate and the PDF and app are wrong, so rules the Supreme Court!

Khal ma khalakki vo Dothraki, mori Valiraki. Valiraki chiftie, ma vokki athzafrazares oleth athdrivari.

Asshekh anha nesok mevenak Valirakes ale Dothrakoon.

I'm not exactly sure then. I guess if there's a real life example of this then we should go with that for the sake of realism. However, I think an compromise could be made by distinguishing ideas based on spelling/capitalization:
dothra- root word for the concept of 'riding'
dothrak - title for a rider
Dothrak - a member of the Dothraki
Dothraki- the group of people
lekh Dothraki- the Dothraki Language

My logic was that the same reason why latin/greek loan words in english are a bastardization in spelling and pronunciation, the same goes for the name George in Dothraki. I guess I was trying to make the name more masculine and strong sounding with that nice, strong velar plosive at the beginning. Jorj too western of a name and too "prissy" (a dothraki perspective. Not mine!) for the protagonist of a Dothraki story.  It may also be fluid in pronunciation based on region.

Ah, ok. Well the name has various different pronunciations depending on how g+e developed in a particular language.
Ancient Greek: Γεώγιος > Georgios
English. George > Jorj
Spanish Jorge > Khorkhe or horhe depending on dialect
German Goerg > Geork (final g pronounced as "k")
Modern Greek Γεώργιος or Γιώργος > Yeoryos or Yorgos
there are even languages that begin the name with "ch", "zh", and "sh". I'm personally a fan of Basque "Gorka", though G(e)orge or G(e)orgi might be better (both with hard G, of course).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%93%CE%B5%CF%8E%CF%81%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82#Descendants

Also, It's a bit ironic that a Dothraki be named George since Γεώργιος comes from An. Grk. γεωργός meaning "farmer."

P.S.
I forgot to ask about the use of "nem" in the phrase "onde vos nem vadakha ki zhavvorsi".  I guess I'm just unclear of the use of "nem" in general, so an explanation would be appreciated.

nem makes the verb passive. e.g.
"Me hethka vadakha ki zhavvosri." - "She is ready to eat because of the dragon."

"Me hethka nem vadakha ki zhavvorsi." - "She is ready to be eaten by the dragon."

[tith]

Is there a specific adjective order for Dothraki? If there isn't, then I prefer to have tith at the end of the descriptors; it seems to fit the flow better.

Not sure, but I'm inclined to keep the adjective as close to the noun it modifies as possible, rather than separating it with another noun.

Why do you use Qisi?

Qisi rek vaes - near that city. Just realized the preposition definition of qisi is only given as "about, concering," but I image its more literal meaning is near, around, by, but that's a guess so yeah.

Why did you put naqis in a verb form when it is simply describing the size of the lake, and not being stated?

naqisa is an adjective in agreement with tozara; when a singular noun is in any case other than the nominative and doesn't end in a vowel, you add -a for agreement.

What is memras and can it be replaced with rekke?

Memras is mra+me, "within it" (the lake). Yeah you can replace it with rekke. Although I'm not sure if "thirat" can be used to mean "to live" as in "to reside in, to inhabit." Spanish and English have no problem with it but Nahuatl, for example, has "yoli(a)" for "to be alive" and "chanti" or "ne(h)mi" for "to reside in," "to inhabit." I ran across the same problem in my Bible translation.

Why is allayafat in 3rd person sng. future tense?

Allayafat is in the 3s future because that's how you form purpose clauses in Dothraki, so "Yanqosor vaesi azh zhavvorsaan atak hrazef ei asshekh vallayafa mae." The people of the city gave the dragon one horse every day to please him." I just asked David Peterson about this two days ago on twitter, I'll be sure to post about this and link the tweets under the post I did about expressing purpose.

Yalli is an animate noun, so the plural accusative /-(s)is/ would be applied.

Well according to the wiki vocabulary page it's inanimate. If you're using the PDF, maybe there's a discrepancy between PDF and site?

Mas is just valuables, and would include silver.

Yup, good point, I got a little too literal in the translation.

Why did you change it to "half of his kingdom" instead of keeping the original "ohara" prize? The Dothraki aren't exactly known for their feminist views, so this change seems pointless to me.

Ah, ok. I was looking at the English version as well and just translated. If you changed the deal from "and half his kingdom" to "his daughter," that's fine then, though it doesn't make sense to me why he would want his daughter spared just to give her away. I think the Dothraki would prefer to be eaten by a dragon than be made slaves.

Dothraki is the race of people, not a descriptor of what zhey Gorj does.  Besides, he was just established as a lajak and not a dothrak.

Right, but isn't Dothraki just the plural of dothrak? Peoples all over the world refer to themselves by such descriptors. Dothrak may mean "rider," but its also used to refer to anyone of the Dothraki people, just like Mongol is believe to come from an adjective meaning "brave" and the Aztecs called themselves "nahuah" meaning "those who speak with a clear and pleasant sound." Of course in English we would say Dothraki regardless of number for the same reason we say "salami" and "panini" instead of "salamo" and "panino," we just stick with whatever form we heard first instead of dealing with plurals in another languages (but of course Latin words still use their Latin plurals, which is really confusing when people pronounce alumni /əˈlʌmnaɪ/ because that sounds like the Latin pronunciation of alumnae /aˈlum.nai/, which in English is pronounced /əˈlʌmneɪː/ and gah, just why?!) but anyways, I think it should be Dothrak haj for that reason, plus the capitalization helps distinguish between the two in writing. Also, I just realized, shouldn't his name be Jorj or Georgios depending on where you're borrowing it from, English or Greek/Latin?

Could you explain what you meant with the "Che filkay" section in parenthesis?

Sorry, meant to cut that out, just a mistake.

Also, the confusion with tozara and toraza was just a typo.  For some reason my brain remembered it as the latter (better flow, I guess?)

Haha, it happens.

Other than those notes, I'm very grateful for the time you put in to editing that. Haji!

Yeah, no problem! been really busy the past week, wasn't able to give it a proper look at it until today.

Well the infinitive works in this sentence simply as its basic function and not in an idiomatic way. Translated directly to english it reads as "I will not give your body to burn." and "Give to her to clean your wounds.".  Both of the infinitives work as the infinitive should, which is to compliment or modify the other verb used in the phrase (the non-infinitive verbs being "vazhok" and "azhas").

Right, but you wouldn't translate those sentences as "I will not give your body to burn." and "Give to her to clean your wounds.", You would translate them as "I will not allow your body to burn.", "Let her clean your wounds." because "to give" is not used to mean "let" in English. What I mean when I say "azhat" and "to have" are being used idiomatically is that, to a non-native speaker, their secondary meanings of "to let, allow" and "must" are not obvious from their primary meaning. It would not be obvious for a monolingual French speaker learning English, for example, that "to have" can mean "must" since "avoir" in french can't be used that way, so a sentence like "I have to eat" would look very odd to them and they would either have to be taught this idiomatic use or infer it from context. If I were a monolingual Spanish speaker learning Dothraki and ran across the sentence "Me azha morea adakhat" and didn't know "azhat"'s secondary meaning, I might incorrectly guess it means "Él les da de comer" - "He gives them (something) to eat.", because the verb "dar" can't be used to express permission in Spanish, it's an idiomatic usage particular to Dothraki.

the "to" in the sentence is not related to the verb "to eat". It is apart of the auxillary verb "have to", which is a synonym of the other auxillary verb "must".  The sentence given wouldn't translate to "Anha mra qora adakhat"; it would translate to "Anha'th adakhak".

Well, I'd argue the "to" in "to have to" is simply a remnant of a missing infinitive to signal that the verb is being used to express obligation, but eh, doesn't really matter, my main point was as explained above.

The only idiom in those lines of dialogue is "Azhas maan", which would tranlsate to "Allow her".  Coincidentally, this could also be expressed using the Jussive (but is significantly muddier), which would be "Affisates me zis yeri".

I don't know, I guess there's just a subtle difference between "azhat" - sp. "dar; dejar", fr. "donner; laisser" and the jussive, sp. & fr. subjunctive in the main clause, both English "let", that we sense. The jussive, as its etymology suggests, just sounds a tad more commanding for us.

[yalli]

Bad news/ update:

Well clumsy me managed to break my new laptop while under a double layer of cushioning, so the writing of my drafts will be postponed until I get the screen fixed.  Once I have the story drafts written I'll move on to fleshing out the history and culture.

Ouch! I hear ya, not 30 minutes ago I almost spilled a glass of orange juice all over my laptop, managed to catch by the rim of the cup with my pinkie and ring fingers, couldn't breathe for like two minutes from a near panic attack! Hope you're able to get your screen fixed soon!

As for the story, I looked it over and made some grammar corrections and suggestions.

[She kashi], Vaesi vekhoon she rhaesh tith Valiraki. Qisi rek vaes vekh tozarasi naqisa ma zhavvorsoon athzhikhar thir mra mae ma zhavvorsa fini fich athzhikhar thir memras m'izze rhaeshes. Allayafat zhavvorse, Yanqosor vaesi azh zhavvorsaan atak hrazef ei asshekh vallayafa mae.  Kash me vo mra qora vosi hrazef ale, me azhish maan yalle mae; me okke yalle ki assikhqoyi. Majin At kashi (che at asshekh che kash kashi?), assikhqoyi okke khalakkies vadakha zhavvorsa mae. Khal vaesi haji athkhezharoon mae, asto yanqosoraan m'ast morilaz mra qora mas mae ei ma ohara mae, mehash me avijazeroe (che vazhi khalakkies thirat) oharaes mae zhorre, hash me laz aqorasoe m'ei mas mae m'ei vizhad ma sachi rhaeshi mae; Vosma me zajje. Khalakki dothra tozaraan, onde vos nem vadakha ki zhavorssi.  Vosma, Lajak Gorje, Dothraki haj, dothra tozarasi ma tih khalakkies.  Khalakki kis asso mae esemrasalat, vosma me akkelen vikovarerat.  Zhavvorsa yatho mra tozarasoon kash mori vaster, me zhokwa ma vo lain vosso.  Lajak Gorje gor mae, ild zhavvorse ma arakhoon mae.  M'asso khalakkies azhat (che ovveth) maan ime mae, majin me liwa mae oleth me torga lenti zhavvorsoon (che me liwa mae ki lenti).  Kash me et haz, zhavvorsa sille Lajakes Gorje ven aresak (che filkay)(che Kash me et haz, Gorj javrath zhavvorsa ven enosh).  Khalakki ma Lajak Gorje fichish zhavvorse vaesaan, ma jin arrokh vojis yanqosores.  (Majin) Gorje oge zhavvorse, ma dozgikh nem losh mra vaesoon ki tor rhaggati. Yanqosor azh Lajakaan Gorjaan khalakkies m'athchomaroon, ma mori dothrash niyanqoy movelat khalasares mori amari vaes mori ma aqora rhaeshes mori zhorre.  Khal vaesi move vojjor okrenegwinvojjoran ma ha Hrazef vezhvenaan Vezhofaan ma ha Lajakaan Gorjaan she gach rekkoon finne zhavvorsa drivo, m'ashefa vitha ha tozarasoon m'evethoon fini melaz kolae ei athzhikhar.

Vekhat takes it subject in the genitive and determiners like ei always go before the noun. When it comes to title+name like khal and lajak, only the title is declined, not the name (see post "Names and Zhey's Uses"). yalli is inanimate, so its plural accusative should be yalle. Zhavvors is the accusative of zhavvorsa, coda -rs is acceptable since r is more sonorous than s and by the same token Gorj should be acceptable as well. Lastly, I think yanqosor or some other collective noun should be used here instead of voji since we're talking about a collective group, not a bunch of individuals, a distinctions many languages make and one I feel Dothraki would make because of the collective case. David Peterson was kind enough to let me know over twitter that purpose in clause-form is expressed by placing the clause in the future tense. e.g. "Anha dothra vaesaan aremekak" - "I rode to the city to sleep." I'll be sure to post that and the tweet for confirmation under "Expressing Purpose in Dothraki" later, but that's what's going on in "[A]ssikhqoyi okke khalakkies vadakha zhavvorsa mae." Lastly, Lake in Dothraki is tozara, not toraza, and I formed the word okrenegwinvojjoran since there is no word for "temple" in Dothraki.

[azhat]

Very good point.

My only problem comes with translation.  In all but the last sentence you used the wrong form of "rest". It would be athmithar and not the infinitive; "We should/must give to the horses a rest" rather than, "We should/must give to the horses to rest".

I mean both in the dictionary and in the dialog azhat takes an infinitive:

Drogo S1E8: "Anha vazhok khadoes yeroon virsalat." - "I will not allow your body to be burned."
Dany S1E8: :"Azhas maan affisat zis yeri..." - "let her clean your wound..."

It's just an idiomatic use of azhat like the use of to have to express obligation in English. "I have to eat" makes no literal sense, how can you possess a "to eat"?

[Tenemos que/Debemos dejar que descansen los caballos.]

My use of Mithrates hrazef was used only in the framework of that sentence.  I don't think it can always replace the use of verbs like ammithrat, but in that sentence you could.
It's also interesting that you view one of those sentences as an imperative and the other indicative. Hoerivezhof, do you view the Jussive as a command? I see it more as a subjunctive or a suggestion the same way that "We should have the horses rest" is one.  It may be how our native languages are structured that we're (or at the very least I am) making assumptions about how Dothraki works.

Not an imperative per se, but the jussive is sort of in between the imperative and the obligatory sense of 'should' (and the word 'jussive' itself comes from the Latin verb 'iubeo,' meaning 'to command, order'). The jussive is an impersonal command not necesarily directed at anyone or indirectly directed at someone as a sort of third-person imperative. Both Spanish and I believe French have a jussive form (the subjunctive in the main clause, preceded by 'que' in spanish), so that you can say:

Tenemos que/Debemos dejar que descansen los caballos.
Kisha eth azhaki hrazefaan mithrat./Kisha eth ammithraki hrazef.
We have to/must let the horses rest. - stating what is required to be done, but not necessarily commanding the action be done.

Deberíamos dejar que descansen los caballos.
Kisha jif azhaki hrazefaan mithrat./Kisha jif ammithraki hrazef.
We should let the horses rest. - stating what must be done, but is not being done and may or may not be done.

Deja/Dejad/Dejen descansar los caballos.
Azhas/Azhi hrazefaan mithrat./Ammithras/Ammithri hrazef.
Let the horses rest. -  imperative, directly commanding that the person being addressed do something.

Dejemos descansar los caballos.
Azhates kisha hrazefaan mithrat./ ammithrates kisha hrazef
Let us let/allow the horses (to) rest. - here the jussive 'let us' is being used as an imperative since Spanish, English and Dothraki lack a 1st singular imperative form.

Que (ellos) dejen descansar los caballos.
Azhates mori hrazefaan mithrat./Ammithrates mori hrazef.
Let/may they let the horses rest. - the jussive, indirectly ordering someone to do something, may or may not specify who should carry out the action, in Spanish can also be used in the 2nd person to relay a command.

Que descansen los caballos.
Mithrates hrazef.
Let/may the horses rest. - the jussive, indirectly ordering the horses to rest.

Honestly I think context is going to determine what you use. If someone said "Hrazef haqi" or "Hrazef zigeree memithri" I could see myself replaying "Majin mithrates mori." or "Majin ammithrates kisha mori." If I'm the one who notices that the horses are tired I may suggest "Kisha eth ammithraki hrazef." If I have the authority and/or think our horses are REALLY tired and NEED to be rested I would command it: "Ammithras/ammithri hrazef, zhey mahrazhi." The reason I prefer a construction with ammithrat over mithrat is that mithrat seems to give more agency to the horses, whereas ammithrat, because its the causative form, takes that agency away. Since it's the riders, not the horses, making the decision to have the horses rest I am want to use ammithrat over mithrat.

I kinda made a Hebrew transliteration for Dothraki too while working on Hebrew names for the Dothraki Bible translation! The only differences were I used צ for ch, since Dothraki doesn't the phoneme /ts/ and [ts] and [tʃ] are two phones that are often approximates for each other across languages; ח for kh; and ו for o and w since w is relatively rare in Dothraki and context will quickly clarify which phoneme ו represents in any given word.

Omg, I don't thought my question will create so many reply ! Thanks a lot !
...
It's a little less confuse for alikh/ale, thanks.

Haha, I think that's just Choyosor and I for ya, we really have to dissect the issue! I wish their were a clearer answer, but it's hard to figure out without more context. Maybe David might clear it up if you ask on his tumbler?

It's not bad ! The correct order is "nous devons faire se reposer les chevaux", but we generaly say "nous devons laisser se reposer les chevaux". Your french is better than a lot of french native... xD

Ah, je suspectais tellement.

Your french is better than a lot of french native... xD

Haha, ma professeure de français du lycée ne te croirait pas si elle t'entendait!

It's not the same meaning. "Mithrates hrazef" is practically a command and "Kisha eth ammithraki hrazef hatif adothraki alle" is a simple observation. I think, in a current language, we will just say "Kisha eth ammithraki hrazef.", "hatif adothraki alle" isn't necessary to understand.


I will finish my translate and post it soon.

Yeah, I think since to let is used for both the jussive and to mean laisser, permettre in English, mixing the two uses up is a simple mistake I image we Anglophones are susceptible to make even if we're aware of the distinction.

Interesting! I'm a bit busy this week but would love to look it over sometime.