How about vekholat? Wouldn't that mean "to begin to exist"?
Why use "yolat"? "be born"? Isn't that too much interpretation? All translations use "come", why not go by that? The fact that a khalasar can actually "come" might be just a happy event that would help this culture assimilate the prayer.
Jadat might well be the winner. If the word is not totally out of place, it's of course best to stick close to original. The way it's used in ye olde X.NOM Y.ALB expression gives me some trust that it at least might carry the right kind of metaphoric connotations. I just like musing over things.
Vekholat, that ingsve proposes, might be a good alternative, much better than my
yolat for sure.
Why not? A formal imperative to replace a subjunctive. I think it works just fine. The "let's" construction seems too colloquial to me.
Umm. We still have problems hitting the same wave length.
Chomat and
chomolat are different words, both of which can be conjugated to formal imperative:
chomi and
chomo. I was wondering, why you used the one that wasn't on our vocabulary page. Both words mean more or less
to respect. The former is stative, communicating a static state of affairs, eg. that I respect you. The latter is ...we have used a word 'dynamic'... it should communicate a change in the situation, an active deed. For example the Lhazreen women weren't generally respected, or considered respectable, so (as horrible as it is) it makes sense that the dynamic word was used. The name here, on the other hand, should have a permanent status of being respected, so I think the word must be
chomat, if not
vichomerat.
The "let's" expression may seem colloquial just because I wrote what little we knew about it in the wiki, and I'm no word smith. I've tried to update the explanation a bit now that we know more.
The problem with formal imperative is that it's rather unlikely the way it's used is grammatical. I think I have specifically asked about using imperatives in third person and got a 'no'. I can't swear I have, but there certainly has been conversation around the subject.
And the further problem is that while grammatically broken language sometimes works in poetic context, with these sentences there is an easy grammatical or near-grammatical way to interpret them, so there's little chance that the strange imperative syntax would be communicated to the audience.
This only if you actually need that verb there, which I'm not convinced about.
Well, it's not impossible that it might work, but I'm quite convinced otherwise and so seem to be ingsve.
Zhey ave kishi she asavva would sound fine to me, but when you throw in the relative pronoun, that just screams for some proper predicate. We have a few examples of
vekhat being used to indicate location, even in such simple sentences as "
Vo mawizzi vekho jinne," but I find no examples of a location adverb used for a solitary argument.
There is nothing wrong with ven she sorfosor ven she asavva, that's simply how you parse it in Dothraki.
Aye. Dothraki uses words like
ven,
che or
ma (also words like
kash) usually in front of all the arguments. It's more a syntax thing than a semantical thing. In translation you can often just drop one of the words away: "
ven she sorfosor ven she asavva" -> "on earth like in heaven"; "
Kash anha adakh, kash heffof samvo." -> "While I ate, the jug got broken."
for the khalasar vs rhaesh debate, here are some more thoughts (coming from an overtly Christian perspective, but the discussion here is very good).
Thanks! I try to be respecful. The whole exercise is a bit pointless otherwise.
Khalasar refers to a moveable band of (presumably living) people. Besides move, the band can increase or decrease in number. It is dynamic, but it is physical. Rhaesh refers to the land, physical land that a khalasar might or might not be occupying.
Kingdom as used in this prayer, and as used by Jesus throughout the gospels really doesn't refer to a literal country or people, but more to a concept. It is referring to a state of being where God is in control. Thus a closer match would be a word for 'reign' or perhaps 'leadership'. Unfortunately, I drew a blank when trying to find a Dothraki term that expresses this idea.
I'm guessing
khalasar is derived from
khal and does not refer to just any band of people, but specifically to a group of people governed by a single
khal. I'd guess comparing to kingdom hits quite close. Less kingdom as defined by the strip of land, more a kingdom defined by the loyal subjects, but kingdom nevertheless. Dothraki often tend to ridicule and detest the other ways of life than their own, so I think any idea of reign tied to land would sound less impressive than reign strictly tied to the people.
"Reign" or "leadership" would work, sure. When in doubt, strip the metaphore and go for the idea behind. But I think
khalasar hits closer to the original wording and inherits most of it's connotations, so as long as it isn't proven unfit, I'm rooting for it.
