Alright! Your mostly dependable commentator on the house again. I think this will be less an error count, more ruminations. Half-way done.
koffi & GangnamIt fits to the fun factor borrowing and then ortographically integrating "coffee". And Gangnam is a name of a city district, so it's normal to leave it as is*. A problem with loan words is how to conjugate them. In
indelat koffi,
koffi works as an object.
Koffi is not, however, in any kind of normal accusative. If it were an inanimate noun (as it should be, being liquid and thus uncountable), it would end in consonant or in epenthetic -e, so either
kof or
koffe. As animate noun it would be
koffies. Different languages seem to deal with this differently. In English there's a fascinating tradition of borrowing words accompanied with their plurals, and as plurals are pretty much the extent of needed declination, this works pretty well. In Finnish practically all loans are integrated (even on spot) to the Finnish declination system. Dothraki use a different, peculiar approach and use a preposition,
haji, to deal with the problem. So
indelat haji coffi would certainly be a working solution, perhaps even
os haji Gangnam.
*Incidentally, I think as it's written "Gangnam" actually adheres to the Dothraki phonotactics. But as far as I know Dothraki does not have velar nasal [ŋ] as a phoneme (though it still might be an allophone for [n]?) so "Gangnam" would be pronounced gan·gnam (or perhaps gaŋ·gnam).
Nayat fini afazhie ma vos ivezho kash asshekh
Yes.
Nayat really is inanimate (if we're not completely mistaken), though that makes my head hurt a little, so
fini is indeed the correct nominative version of the relative pronoun... The only problematic part I really can see here is
kash asshekh, and even that is more promising than anything that I would likely have come with. With
asshekh carrying that inconvinient "today" sense, one would probably need a term like "daytime". Using a sentence-level operator kash (probably good here without pairing, as it is in
Ki jini anha astak asqoy hatif Maisi Krazaaji kash shieraki vitihiri asavvasoon.) is a good attempt to push asshekh from an adverb (today) to a noun (day) inside an adverb phrase, but does a single
asshekh function well enough as a sentence, or should there be some dummy prepostition structure .. or something.
Nayat fini shila kifinosi indelat koffi
Is
shilat a right word for know-how type skills? It's "familiarity", mostly used for knowing people, but also for knowing language (as that's deep intuitive familiarity, where mere intellectual knowledge does not suffice). There's a different word,
nesat, for knowing information, but neither of these terms sound really suitable for physical skills, know-how. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed with David, but I have conmpletely forgotten, what we learnt.
Nayat fin afazhoe zhor kash ajjalan
OK. This is an error, if I understand at all, what's going on.
Fin is an accusative of
fini, so the sentence would be ~"A girl whom the heart warms". So the girl would be warmed by a heart (presumably hers). But I don't think
afazholat even takes staight object (for that you'd need
affazhat), so this would not even really work, IMO. To make the girl the possessor of the heart, you need ablative as heart is inalienable possession:
Nayat finoon afazhoe zhor, ~"a girl whose heart grows warm".
This possessor structure is a good example of garden-pathy (and perhaps even ambivalent) relative clauses. As shown in David's example,
Adra fini tih anha arakh, "The turtle whose arakh I saw," the rest of the argument is left as is when possessor
fini is fronted. If we're talking about inanimate things and alienable possessions, the accusative is often the same as noun's nominative and
fini's genitive is always the same as its nominative. That can bet a bit confusing. It really helps that Dothraki verbs seem to have quite fixed transitivity, so at least you should know, how many arguments there should be. How do you differentiate "A girl whose dog bit the horse" from "A girl whose horse a dog bit"? hrmp. Maybe I should post a very late comment on that blog post.
Nayat fin me
Huh? The translation I'm reading says "A girl with that kind of twist". Is this just an unfinished line?
Anha mahrazh fin afazhie ven yer kash asshekh
I'm pretty sure here the full
fin ven afazhie ven yer is in order.
Anha mahrazh fin indee koffi hatif meme fishoe
Hahh. "I'm a man who drinks the coffee before is turns cold" is so much less impressive than "I'm a guy who one-shots his coffee before it even cools down"
Hatif is a bit problematic, because contrary to
kash we know it precicely as a preposition. Dunno. I guess it might work, even though there isn't even any word to mark the case it should assign (or could the subject do that?). That
me- thingie looks more wrong to me than
hatif, though. Translating straight to English, "before that it turns cold" does not sound too terrible, but I remain sceptical.
Anha mahrazh fini samvoe zhor kash ajjalan
OK. That's the genitive, alright, but zhor is still inalienable, so
finnoon. Note the geminated
n irregularity in the animate declination of the relative pronoun.
Yer zheanae ma laz nem zhili
loveable
Sek yer, zhey yer
more fun
Elates kash athnakar
I see in vocab
kash has been listed as having a meaning "until", but I'm more familiar with "while". That "until" might even be a bit off, certainly not well understood.
Kash athnakhar for "until the end" does not ring right to me. Perhaps
kash athnakharaan might work better? But we have a couple of examples of use of
arrekaan for "until", so I'd recommend that (I'm not sure, though, what to do with athnakhar - genitive or accusative I guess).
Arrek might even be more promising for other uses of
kash you have.
