I gave episodes three and six another diligent-ish read through, now that the text is pretty much thoroughly understandable - not just the words, but also the grammar.
Some fun things that popped out:
Questionable lines:
[...]vo ondeo[...] and Hash tihi? are curious, but those have already been discussed, and are for now simply categorized as ungrammatical.
We also just discussed case assignments of loy ...skipping that too...
Ishish chare acharoe hash me nem ejervae nharesoon.
"Maybe the ear will understand" is rather peculiar expression and could be idiomatic. As such it might take some poetic freedoms, so it's not the strongest example grammar-wise. But still, charolat looks a lot like a transitive verb, but seems to be used here without object. Proof that transitive verbs can drop the object without any major hassle? Supporting evidence at least.
Edit: OK. After some clarification (namely that charolat means "to listen") this is only half as peculiar as before, and charolat probably isn't even transitive.
Khaleesi vos zalo meme nem azisa.
Right now this is the wrong way rubbing line of the day. I remeber there was discussion about azisa, and after some misunderstandings it seemed very well explained. Now I read this and just can't stop thinking it must be wrong. To our knowledge zisat should be intransitive stative. [...]meme azisa. would make sense. [...]meme azisoe. might make even more sense. But how does the passive structure figure into this? I think the sentence should then be [...]meme nem azzisa. (or [...]meme nem vazzisa.) I think Peterson said that it is right the way it is... ah well.
Ma me nem ahakee ma Rhaego!
Do proper names decline? I think I might have seen a name in ablative or allative, but can't find any example now. AFAIK ma should assign genitive.
Qora mae!
Could this be right? Were qora an inanimate noun, I'd just assume this to be "His hands!" That would, in the context, make sense, and could even fairly reasonably be translated "Seize him!" Now, though, I think the stronger hypothesis is that the formal imperative agrees with plurals and that the plural in question is /-a/.
Lines I especially liked:
Ishish chare acharoe hash me nem ejervae nharesoon.
OK. This one again. Word play! So sweet. I also really like the meaning shift in chare->charat->charolat. The line is a bit like "Maybe the cognizance will recognize if it's disembodied." hehh..
Ave anni ezzo anhaan os lajataan.
Well, os lajataan is in itself quite simple and beautiful expression (well, fighting is not that beautiful thing per se, but in context of GoT and dothraki, it's completely acceptable). It also resonates well with ezzo. It's not exactly "My father made me find a path to fighting," but that's not too much off either.
Also: infinite of a verb nonchalantly used as a noun. Wow. You can do that?
Ogi loy mawizzi. ... Ezas loy alegri h'anhaan.
It's nice when the nuances in the text synch with the acting/story. Irri comes all formal and self assured, she's a handmaid of the friggin' khaleesi, after all. So she uses the formal, commanding imperative. Rakharo's dampening response has it's effect: The next command is already much more defensive and personal; Irri changes to regular informal imperative.
...meme zala rek meme nem jer ki mae.
Does anyone else find this just thoroughly hilarious? The difference between pronouns like "that" and "it" is rather subtle, and not exactly same in dothraki and english, so to slightly exaggerate, this goes somewhere between "...it-it wants it it-it was traded by it." and "...that-that wants that that-that was traded by that." No, really, it's a functional, understandable sentence.
Also: It seems jerat is syntactically closer to "buy" than "trade". Seems that the thing that is object of the trade is by default the thing that was got, not the thing that was given away. To my understanding in english this is rather the other way around.
