rhae mhar n. sore-foot not completly sure of the meaning...
That's an iffy phrase from early days of Dothraki. It's hard to tell, what to make of it. It looks idiomatic or something, as it's used in slightly odd way in "khal rhae mhar" - no preposition, no visible case marking. Maybe it's a noun type expression like bigfoot, maybe it's adjectival like in the translation. I'd just drop it off. It's not a word anyway.
zhey part. vocative marker I need help, cause I'm not sure how to explain it correctly in french
What I do in these situations is I go to Wikipedia and change the language of the article. That often gives a good enough hunch on how the terminology works in the intented language. Maybe you have tried this already, but the results look promising to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case ->
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/VocatifEnglish article discusses vocative mainly in the context of cases, but you should be able to extrapolate the general notion of vocative, and it seems the French article does not share this off-the-mark focus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marker_%28linguistics%29 ->
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marque_%28grammaire%29"Marker" is so generic term that it may be almost unusably wague, but it's also very correct. You might speak of
particle or even
preposition, I think.
Does that help?
ziqwehelat v. to retch not completly sure of the meaning...
My internet dictionary-verse says of
retch1. ( intr ) to undergo an involuntary spasm of ineffectual vomiting; heave
2. to vomit
and that sounds about right as far as my English skills are considered. No idea if both meanings are accurate for
ziqwehelat. If you have no word close to
to retch, I'd go with
to vomit. That may be a miss, but we have to accept that. English translations may already be off the mark and when you translate, you are bound to push some words even more off the mark.
zireyeselat vtr. to offend, to bug, to jostle the translation of to bug slips away from my brain...
To hassle, to pester?
affesat vtr. to make someone itch not completly sure of the meaning...
As in "this wool shirt makes me itch". Itchy things make you itch and that's really uncomfortable.
tikkheya ni. verb, the instigator's half of the act (Grammatical sense) cf. melikheya absolutly not a clue about the meaning
This takes some remembering, so I might be talking rubbish... I think there should be two separate meanings,
1. verb
2. the instigator's half of the act
The former should be clear, but non-canon, the latter should, if memory serves, be canon, but rather mysterious. It's something similar to cause and effect: if you break a vase with a baseball bat, you hitting the vase is
tikkheya ("task part") and the breaking of the vase is the
melikheya ("occurence part"). So if you teach children, but they just don't learn, you might say, that
tikkheya was there, but
melikheya just didn't show up. And someone could argue that there had to be something wrong with the
tikkheya, because otherwise
melikheya inevitably follows. And you'd respond, that there was nothing wrong with your
tikkheya and the children must be broken.
melikheya ni. the patient's half of the act (grammatical, not medical meaning) cf. tikkheya absolutly not a clue about the meaning
Whoop. I discussed this already. [edit: Hey, by the way, why doesn't melikheya have geminate? Have we copied to the dictionary wrong? Shouldn't it be melikkheya?]
sondra ni-B. dragon glass obsidian not completly sure of the meaning...
"Obsidian" should not be too hard to translate. "Dragon glass" is in-world name for obsidian (they call it "obsidian" too, but "dragon class" is older name denoting to the stone's mystical in-world properties)... so if you want to get "dragon glass" into your translation, you need someone who's read the books in french for this too.
ray (2) v.aux. to have (perfect tense introduction) I may need help from a french linguist here...
Ya. This seems harder to get right by a short Wikipedia dive. Perfect/imperfect disctinction seems to be accompli/inaccompli:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_accompli/inaccompliDunno. Is that enough?
m' (2) elided version of {\it me-} a complementizer used to introduce subordinate clauses I totally need help from a french linguist on this one 
Hahh. Yes. It's funny, as the normal unelided version is a prefix, not a separate word (though the difference is really flimsy), and thus is not featured in the dictionary at all. But it would be terribly unhelpful not to include the elided version, as you can't really tell that it's not a separate word, and as
ma is elided the same way as /
me-/, setting ground for major confusion. "a complementizer used to introduce subordinate clauses" is not even that good definition. /
Me-/ is used to introduce
some subordinate clauses, but I'm not too clear on the details. Seems to be introducing
noun clauses, specifically. And I think complementizers are by definition used to introduce subordinate clauses, so the the explanation is probably tautological too. But hey, it's probably my writing, and I'm no linguist, so a certain level of clumsiness is to be expected. Just use
prefix, if
complementizer is a problem word
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_%28grammaire%29#Subordonn.C3.A9ehethkat v. tight; ready, prepared shouldn't this word be translated in english as to be tight; to be ready, to be prepared ? (c.f. hethke)
yep, it should.
