Izzi ast ki:Anha zalak nesak kifinosi astak "my name is Izzi" she lekh Dothraki.
A challenge! In how many ways that
might be both idiomatic and grammatically correct can you express the idea of "My name is X."
Hake anni Qvaak. / Qvaak hake anni.My name is Qvaak. / Qvaak is my name.I guess the former of these two is more probable, but the latter doesn't seem particulary wrong either.
Anha Qvaak. / Qvaak Anha. I'm Qvaak. / Qvaak is me.The Tarzan way is not a bad way, but now the latter variation might seem a bit too existential.
Anha nem hake ma Qvaak.I'm named Qvaak.*
Hakelat + ma -> NOM? is stolen from Dany's speech.
Astos anni ki Qvaak.Speak of me by saying Qvaak.a bit more creative solution, just to try the boundaries of quote-introducing ki
*Sidenote: Even with
ray serving as a way to introduce a perfect, I can't help but wonder, if dothraki imperfects should sometimes be translated into perfect or even present in english. I have an ill-informed inkling that in general different languages use tenses rather differently (english and modern finnish use them rather similarily, so this must be based in some vague hearsay).
Maybe Peterson has already said something clarifying on the matter? From what I read, the regular past tense is commonly used - story telling seems to be consistently in imperfect. [Should the tense even be called imperfect, or is it better called just past tense ('general past tense')? Verb conjugation page never mentions imperfect. I'm not sure if Peterson ever does either.]
Man, I'm good at vague doubts.
Ingsve ast ki:I think David said that using verb classes to express something comes higher on the priority list than using a preposition. I'll have to look that up from his talk.
LCC4 paper has that tidbit:
Hierarchy: Canonical case role >> noncanonical case role >> object of preposition >> subordinate clause.
Use a subordinate clause only if nothing else really works; use a preposition only if the case system falls short. I'm not entirely sure about canonical/noncanonical distinction.
..Aaand some further comments on my past writing attempt:
Graddakh! Zhey chiftik! Hash yer vifoneri, hash torga anni vos nira!
Chakas, zhey ifak! Anha addriv mawizzi.
Mawizzi! Yer vos davrae anhaan. Kishi agarvoki silokh.
Vosecchi. Anha addriv mawizzi vezhveni. Hash yer emi anhaan?
Mawizzi vezhveni? Anha sekke emak yeraan!
We know now it should be
vo(s) niro and
vo(s) davrao.
I
don't think we know, if there are verbs that can't be used without object. To my knowledge
nirat might easily be a verb for being full of something, and to be just generally full would need something else, a different derivation maybe.
I should have (but failed to) put a couple of
mawizzi into accusative:
Anha addriv mawizze (or is it
mawiz? Don't we know all the irregular nouns we know?). I think I copied from "
Ogi loy mawizzi.". Dunno if that's just a mistake. More likely
loy or
ogat assigns - or can assign - a genitive.
I wonder how tightly dothraki hold on to their subject pronouns. When the verb suffix reveals the subject, finns often drop the pronoun away. The text might be more natural and fluid as:
Graddakh! Zhey chiftik! Hash yer vifoneri, hash torga anni vos niro!
Chakas, zhey ifak! Anha addriv mawizze.
Mawizzi! Yer vo davrao anhaan. Agarvoki silokh.
Vosecchi. Anha addriv mawizze vezhveni. Hash yer emi anhaan?
Mawizzi vezhveni? Sekke emak yeraan!
