Messages

Yes, thanks, Hrakkar.

I have to agree here with Mad Latinist here, I'm against it and also it has the problem of not letting one find the whole words.

Well, sure, they could. Or maybe they could just pick the name of that tribe that has said "warrior-women" and use it for the general word (cf. Amazons). But it all depends on how productive the ending -eesi is modernly.

Well, the problem with that is that "woman warrior" is a concept that is certainly foreign to the Dothraki altogether. I don't think they would allow their women to be warriors anyways.

This makes me very happy.

I'm glad

Well, we still haven't got enough material, but you can always check the Valyrian wiki. Just go to the Dothraki wiki and search for Valyrian, there you'll find all the material we now have on the language.

I don't know. The terms are rather unique to the language, so the abbreviations would be confusing. We should at least let people who use it decide on whether it's better for it to be abbreviated or not.

(Of course all abbreviations would be explained at the end. We just didn't get to that yet).

Well yeah, David developed the languages, created Dothraki and Valyrian, which is now up to 666 words. Also he developed Astapori Valyrian, don't forget that one. I would love for him to keep on going. I know there's a fan Old Tongue conlang, but this was made by a fan of the books. Probably there will be more languages coming soon, I hope so

You don't even know how happy I am now! Thank you for this!

Thanks so much for that, hehe. Happy you found it useful

Stay tuned for updates!

Well, I'm glad to announce that now there is actually one. The Vocabulary list at the Dothraki wiki/Valyrian wiki, this is the link:
http://wiki.dothraki.org/dothraki/Valyrian/High_Valyrian_Vocabulary

Up to now we have only the High Valyrian vocabulary list, and it will be updated regularly hopefully. So this would be the first kind of lexicon we have on High Valyrian. Enjoy!

I have finished the first edition of the High Valyrian lexicon at the Valyrian wiki! Enjoy: http://wiki.dothraki.org/dothraki/Valyrian/High_Valyrian_Vocabulary

The vocabulary will keep growing and verbs and adjectives will be added soon.

That formatting looks really cluttered. First of all I think the noun classes should just be marked with a single letter so "nl." "ns." "na." and "nt.".

Is there really a need to list person and number in the vocabulary? Usually all nouns should just be listed in the nominative in a dictionary.

What person? What do you mean? There are no verbs yet. They are all listed in the nominative which is not stated and they are in "sg." because there are also collectives relexicalized.

The formatting is exactly the same as the one used for the Dothraki vocabulary list.

Edit: Ok, now I got you. It's not marked for "person", what you see there is the gender and the declension type, so lunar 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, then solar 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc and so on. The singular could be suppressed but we were thinking that it might be useful to contrast with collectives. Also I don't think a one letter abbreviation is a good idea, since the genders are very peculiar, not that common and people could get confused by "na." and such. Maybe the best way to abbreviate them would be aq., sol., lun. and ter. Whatever people think is more helpful. What do you think?

I have finished the first edition of the High Valyrian lexicon at the Valyrian wiki! Enjoy: http://wiki.dothraki.org/dothraki/Valyrian/High_Valyrian_Vocabulary

The vocabulary will keep growing and verbs and adjectives will be added soon.

Working on it, chief! :p We need to do some skyping! xD

[Sek, sekosshi!]

I got to 97% I did create a topic also about it. Should I translate also the Introduction and all that?

Sek, sekosshi!

And yes, translate the intorduction. Havazhyol is having some difficulty with that, and I can't remember to get back to him    Let me know if you have any issues.

Thanks, I will be working on it as soon as possible. It'll be finished pretty soon and we can announce it.

[Question particle]

Yes, I think you should clarify that's the Question particle in your paper. Otherwise it may be confusing.