Author Topic: What the hell is melikheya/tikkheya ?  (Read 1566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Khal_Qana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 209
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Dothraki fan looking for some friends to talk to
    • View Profile
Re: What the hell is melikheya/tikkheya ?
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2017, 06:28:24 pm »
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".
My name means butt swarm

HoeriVezhof

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What the hell is melikheya/tikkheya ?
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2017, 07:20:05 pm »
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"?
Che vezak anha os che amovek - Hannibal Barca, ko Punik.

Khal_Qana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 209
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Dothraki fan looking for some friends to talk to
    • View Profile
Re: What the hell is melikheya/tikkheya ?
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2017, 01:22:12 pm »
Quote
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..."

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"). 

Quote
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"?

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".

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".
My name means butt swarm

HoeriVezhof

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What the hell is melikheya/tikkheya ?
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2017, 06:47:35 pm »
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 "√Čl 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 06:49:59 pm by HoeriVezhof »
Che vezak anha os che amovek - Hannibal Barca, ko Punik.