What the hell is melikheya/tikkheya ?

[Alizia]

M'athchomaroon !

I don't understand what melikheya and tikkheya means... "the patient's/instigator's half of the act". Have you some example to explain that ?

[HoeriVezhof]

M'athchomaroon !

I don't understand what melikheya and tikkheya means... "the patient's/instigator's half of the act". Have you some example to explain that ?

They're linguistic terms having to do with grammatical agency. I believe they correspond with English patient and agent, respectively, maybe patient/agent+verb since tikkheya is also listed as meaning verb? An agent is a noun or noun phrase in a sentence that carries out the action while a patient is a noun or noun phrase that undergoes or receives a verb's action. e.g. "the boy hit the ball." "the boy" is the agent and "the ball" is the patient. Don't confuse agent with subject and patient with direct object, Even if we make the sentence passive ("the ball was hit by the boy") "the boy" is still the agent and "the ball" the patient. You can read a bit more about it on their wikipedia pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_(grammar)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_(grammar)

[Alizia]

Oh okay ! I understand ! Thanks a lot !

I have 3 last words that I don't understand the exact meaning :

What is the different between "ale" and "alikh" ? Why they don't be adverbs ?

What is "ammithrat" ? I can't imagine a sentence with this strange verb.

[Khal_Qana]

Ammithrat = se reposer

Me ammithri mra okre mae = Elle se repose dans sa chambre

[HoeriVezhof]

What is the different between "ale" and "alikh" ? Why they don't be adverbs ?

Well, according to the dictionary, because one's a noun and the other is an adjective. No but seriously, it's just because that’s how Dothraki developed. Consider plus in French: it comes from latin adjective plus, which was used like any ol' adjective in the plural but required the following noun to be in the genitive in the singular:
Sunt plures feles hic. - There are more cats here. - Il y a plus de chats ici.
but
Est plus casei. - There is more (of the) cheese. - Il y a plus de fromage.

Plures and feles are both in the nominative plural in the first sentence, but in the second plus is in the nominative singular and caseum in the genitive singular. You can see how over time this little quirk in the singular spread to the plural.

As in French, adjectives in Latin could also stand alone, acting like nouns.
Ego volo plus (alicuius). - I want more (of something). - Je veux plus (de quelque chose).

You can already see how plus can start to be reanalyzed as an adverb. Eventually quantity and degree where conflated in Vulgar Latin, As plus + adj. started to replace the comparative and superlative.
Ego sum fortior quam is. > *Eo su plus forte qua illui. - I am braver than he is. - Je suis plus brave que lui.
Now we lop off that "qua illui" and we get:
Ego sum fortior. > Eo su plus forte. - I am braver. - je suis plus brave.
And thus plus became reanalyzed as an adverb in French with de taking the place of the lost genitive when used with nouns.


In terms of ale and alikh and their uses:
We know they're not used with adjectives, as Dothraki as the comparative and superlative for that.

Here's two examples of Dany using ale as an adjective with a noun:
Dany S6E6: Anha aqafak san ale yeroa ei Khaloon ray qaf khalasaroon mae! - I will ask more of you (or, a heap more from you) than any Khal has ever asked of his khalasar!

Dany S6E4: Hazi ale khadosoon. - That is more than most have.

In the first example you see ale being used like any other adjective to modify the noun. The same is true in the second, only it's in the predicate.

I think the most adverby form will be ale:
Anha acharak vos ale.

Alikh, meanwhile, acts as a dummy noun when the grammar requires it, similar to san + gen. and plus + gen. in Latin:
Drogo S1E7: Kisha vastoki vos alikh hrazefi ido m'adori shiqethi. - "Let us speak speak no more about wooden horses or iron chairs."
*Anha zalak mesine ale. - I want more soup. - Je veux plus de soupe.
*Anha zalak alikh. - I want more. - Je veux plus.
But they sometimes appear interchangeable,:
Drogo S1E8: Anha acharak vos ale. - I will hear no more.
Dany S2E5: Anha acharak vos alikh. - I will hear no more.
Drogo S2E10: ...ma anha zigerok nesat vos alikh. - …and I don't need to know more.

seeing as san is also treated as an adverb, I guess it makes sence alikh would be too. It's possible both forms can currently be used adverbially, and Dothraki will eventually settle on one or the other (because the Dothraki are totes real and GoT is a documentary series, right?), but who knows? (Well, David, David Peterson knows.)

Ammithrat = se reposer

Me ammithri mra okre mae = Elle se repose dans sa chambre

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, Choyosor; mithrat = se reposer, ammithrat = faire se reposer
Kisha eth ammithri ammithraki hrazef hatif dothrae adothraki alle. - Nous devons faire se reposer les chevaux avant de continuer à monter.

(pardon mon français, je ne suis pas locuteur natif. On doit dire "nous devons faire se reposer les chevaux," ou "nous devons faire les chevaux se reposer?" lequel sonne plus naturel?)

[Khal_Qana]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, Choyosor; mithrat = se reposer, ammithrat = faire se reposer
Kisha eth ammithri hrazef hatif dothrae alle. - Nous devons faire se reposer les chevaux avant de continuer à monter.

Yeah you're probably right since you appear to know french better than I do (which is to say none at all).  I just looked up the definition of ammithrat, which has no distinction from mithrat in the dictionary, and found an example sentence in french online.  Triple translation is tough on a wee boy like me

[HoeriVezhof]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, Choyosor; mithrat = se reposer, ammithrat = faire se reposer
Kisha eth ammithri hrazef hatif dothrae alle. - Nous devons faire se reposer les chevaux avant de continuer à monter.

Yeah you're probably right since you appear to know french better than I do (which is to say none at all).  I just looked up the definition of ammithrat, which has no distinction from mithrat in the dictionary, and found an example sentence in french online.  Triple translation is tough on a wee boy like me

Haha, Well that's two years of high school French, 4 years of Duolingo, and 22 years of speaking a related language gets you (mostly the knowing a related language thing)! Yeah, I think just to rest as a transitive verb is weird in English, though it is acceptable. "We should rest the horses" or "We should make the horses rest" sound odd (at least to me). "We should give the horses a rest," "We should let the horses rest" might be more idiomatic and natural-sounding translations (again, at least for my dialect of English).

p.s. I fully expect Alizia to ask me to translate my atrocious French and please no one ask me to actually try and speak French because I'm sure I sound like I have a potato in my mouth when I do.

[Khal_Qana]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, Choyosor; mithrat = se reposer, ammithrat = faire se reposer
Kisha eth ammithri hrazef hatif dothrae alle. - Nous devons faire se reposer les chevaux avant de continuer à monter.

Yeah you're probably right since you appear to know french better than I do (which is to say none at all).  I just looked up the definition of ammithrat, which has no distinction from mithrat in the dictionary, and found an example sentence in french online.  Triple translation is tough on a wee boy like me

Haha, Well that's two years of high school french, 4 years of Duolingo, and 22 years of speaking a related language gets you (mostly the knowing a related language thing)! Yeah, I think just to rest as a transitive verb is weird in English, though it is acceptable. "We should rest the horses" or "We should make the horses rest" sound odd (at least to me). "We should give the horses a rest," "We should let the horses rest" might be more idiomatic and natural-sounding translations (again, at least for my dialect of English).

Honestly, I wouldn't use ammithrat all that much since I have the Jussive instead. Using your example sentence, I would much prefer it to be structured as "Mithrates hrazef" or "Let the horses rest" than the needlessly long "Kisha eth ammrithi hrazef hatif dothrae alle".

[HoeriVezhof]

Honestly, I wouldn't use ammithrat all that much since I have the Jussive instead. Using your example sentence, I would much prefer it to be structured as "Mithrates hrazef" or "Let the horses rest" than the needlessly long "Kisha eth ammrithi ammithraki hrazef hatif dothrae adothraki alle".

My bad, guess I'm not used to conjugating the 1st person plural. I'm wondering where ammithrat came from since it's not in the dialog. Maybe the handbook? Also, while that might work in this context, what if I wanted to say "we rested the horses before riding further."? You'd kind of have to say "Kisha ammithrish hrazef hatif adothraki alle." I suppose you could say "Kisha azhish hrazefaan mithrat hatif kisha adothraki alle.", but then thats longer than just using ammithrat, and if the word exists, it must be used, as odd as it may seem to us non-Dothraki speakers.

[Khal_Qana]

My bad, guess I'm not used to conjugating the 1st person plural. I'm wondering where ammithrat came from since it's not in the dialog.

The fine folk who worked to compile the dictionary probably used pre-existing rules of root modification set by DJP to create a whole mess of words that aren't used in the show. I believe the show hasn't even used an eighth (maybe less) of what is in the dictionary.

Also, while that might work in this context, what if I wanted to say "we rested the horses before riding further."? You'd kind of have to say "Kisha ammithrish hrazef hatif adothraki alle." I suppose you could say "Kisha azhish hrazefaan mithrat hatif kisha adothraki alle.", but then thats longer than just using ammithrat, and if the word exists, it must be used, as odd as it may seem to us non-Dothraki speakers.

True.  I think Dothraki has the same problem as spanish, where words contain many syllables and aren't as efficient about carrying meaning.  This makes Dothraki speakers speak at a rather fast rate in order to carry a conversation at a normal interval of time.  I'm not the best at explaining what I'm talking about, so I'll let the paper explain for me:
http://ronnetsell.net/html/rate_of_speech_and_comms_effic.html

[HoeriVezhof]

The fine folk who worked to compile the dictionary probably used pre-existing rules of root modification set by DJP to create a whole mess of words that aren't used in the show. I believe the show hasn't even used an eighth (maybe less) of what is in the dictionary.

Huh, I'm I've done the same with my Bible translation (which is still on-going, just been really busy), so yeah I get it.

True.  I think Dothraki has the same problem as spanish, where words contain many syllables and aren't as efficient about carrying meaning.  This makes Dothraki speakers speak at a rather fast rate in order to carry a conversation at a normal interval of time.  I'm not the best at explaining what I'm talking about, so I'll let the paper explain for me:
http://ronnetsell.net/html/rate_of_speech_and_comms_effic.html

Oh yeah, no I know what you're talking about. Speaking anecdotally, the speed of my California English just can't compared to my Spanish!

[Alizia]

Omg, I don't thought my question will create so many reply ! Thanks a lot !

(pardon mon français, je ne suis pas locuteur natif. On doit dire "nous devons faire se reposer les chevaux," ou "nous devons faire les chevaux se reposer?" lequel sonne plus naturel?)

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


It's a little less confuse for alikh/ale, thanks.

Honestly, I wouldn't use ammithrat all that much since I have the Jussive instead. Using your example sentence, I would much prefer it to be structured as "Mithrates hrazef" or "Let the horses rest" than the needlessly long "Kisha eth ammrithi hrazef hatif dothrae alle".

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.

[HoeriVezhof]

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.

[Khal_Qana]

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.

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.

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.

Anglophones

Haz ase allayafa anna  . Me mema ven "Anglophile", m'anha anglophile.

[HoeriVezhof]

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.