Sentence Attempts

[Qvaak]

Well, emat means "to smile (at?)" and "to approve" and by the way it is expressed, giving is implied. Though actual cultural connotations may wary, the expression has a warmer feel than english "to approve". Within the context of my text I felt "like" wasn' t too far fetched translation. I took some liberties, yes.
Hash yer emi anhaan? is, I think, if we go for a strict translation, Do you approve of me?.
If the sentence were Hash yer vemi anhaan? I guess even the more concrete translation scheme Will you smile at me? might work.

[ingsve]

I'm very impressed and I really like your use of emat for "like". 

Is that canonical?

Have you looked at David Petersons talk from the language creation conference. It's one of the uses of the verb class constructions that makes it have that meaning.

[Izzi]

Oh boy... here it goes. Attempt #1

Anha zalak nesak kifinosi astak "my name is Izzi" she lekh Dothraki.

It's supposed to mean: I want to know how to say "my name is Izzi" in Dothraki. Actually, that would be attempt #2. The first thing I tried to write was "my name is Izzi" but only got "anni hake(es?) Izzi" and I'm really not sure if that sounds right or not lol. What is the word for the verb "to be" in Dothraki?

[Verak]

What is the word for the verb "to be" in Dothraki?

There isn't one...   

But that's a FEATURE, not a BUG. 

[Izzi]

What is the word for the verb "to be" in Dothraki?

There isn't one...   

But that's a FEATURE, not a BUG. 

Well that's going to make translating Shakespeare (to be or not to be?) in Dothraki a bit difficult. Lol. Holy brain twister!

[Verak]

In Japanese it's:

  生きるか死ぬか、それは問題です。
  ikiru ka shinu ka, sore wa mondai desu.
  live   ?  die      ?,  that-TOP question is.

Japanese has "to be" but they translate the actual meaning of the poetry as opposed to the actual words. 

I'm pretty sure that Dothraki has LOTS of tasty words regarding living and dying. 

[ingsve]

Well that's going to make translating Shakespeare (to be or not to be?) in Dothraki a bit difficult. Lol. Holy brain twister!

My guess would be:

Vekhat che vos vekhat... which would roughly translate as:

"to exist or to not exist..." or "to be present or to not be present"

As for general rules to express "to be":

First of all when you place two words next to each other like "man warrior" it translates as "The man is a warror". Think of it roughly as "Me Tarzan, you Jane". Then there are verbs that express the meaning of being in the verb itself. Nrojat means "to be thick", nemat means "to be empty", diwelat means "to be small" etc.

[ingsve]

Oh boy... here it goes. Attempt #1

Anha zalak nesak kifinosi astak "my name is Izzi" she lekh Dothraki.

It's supposed to mean: I want to know how to say "my name is Izzi" in Dothraki. Actually, that would be attempt #2. The first thing I tried to write was "my name is Izzi" but only got "anni hake(es?) Izzi" and I'm really not sure if that sounds right or not lol. What is the word for the verb "to be" in Dothraki?

When you say "I want to know how to say..." you don't need to conjugate know and say. They will be in the infinitive form in Dothraki just like they are in english (to know/to say). Also the preposition ki is used ahead of quoted speech.

I think the sentence should be something like this:

Anha zalak nesat kifinosi astat ki "My name is Izzi" she lekh Dothraki.

So you were pretty close.

To say my name is Izzi you say: Hake anni Izzi. (Literally: "Name of mine is Izzi")

The possessor (anni) always comes after the thing that is possessed (name).

[Izzi]

Thank you very much Ingsve! I've never been very good with grammar (I can understand the rules individually, their usefulness and all, but putting it all together in my brain... gah! I'm the type of person you can drop in a foreign country and expect to pick back up later and I'd be able to speak the language without knowing too much of the grammar. That's how I learned Italian. I also learned English trough immersion, away from home where we speak French) and really do appreciate the clarifications you provided.

My guess would be:

Vekhat che vos vekhat... which would roughly translate as:

"to exist or to not exist..." or "to be present or to not be present"

As for general rules to express "to be":

First of all when you place two words next to each other like "man warrior" it translates as "The man is a warror". Think of it roughly as "Me Tarzan, you Jane". Then there are verbs that express the meaning of being in the verb itself. Nrojat means "to be thick", nemat means "to be empty", diwelat means "to be small" etc.

I was looking at the verb "to be present" and wondered if it could be used in that context. Man I love learning new languages. Just for gaining a new perspective on things and people and really make you think about what you're trying to say and the right way to say it. 

[Izzi]

Sek! Anha char qisi yer.
Shafka lajakes vezhven.
Yes! I have heard about you.
You (are a) great warrior.

Me vos zhavvors.
Vorsa vos addriva zhavvors.
He no dragon.
Fire (does) not kill dragon. (I have a feeling something is missing here. I wonder if we'll be given a word for the verb "to do".

Feedback is appreciated.

[Verak]

Sek! Anha char qisi yer.
Shafka lajakes vezhven.
Yes! I have heard about you.
You (are a) great warrior.

Me vos zhavvors.
Vorsa vos addriva zhavvors.
He no dragon.
Fire (does) not kill dragon. (I have a feeling something is missing here. I wonder if we'll be given a word for the verb "to do".

Feedback is appreciated.

Is the rs of zhavvors allowed as a coda? Wouldn't it have to be zhavvorse?

I haven't taken the time to learn all the phonology rules yet. Where are they, by the way?

[Izzi]

Is the rs of zhavvors allowed as a coda? Wouldn't it have to be zhavvorse?

I haven't taken the time to learn all the phonology rules yet. Where are they, by the way?

Yeah, I'm not too sure. I was looking at the epenthesis page http://wiki.dothraki.org/dothraki/Epenthesis and how to form an accusative nouns for inanimate nouns http://wiki.dothraki.org/dothraki/Noun_Cases

[ingsve]

Sek! Anha char qisi yer.
Shafka lajakes vezhven.
Yes! I have heard about you.
You (are a) great warrior.

A couple things here. First of all to hear about someone is said using the "topic verb class". http://wiki.dothraki.org/dothraki/Verb_Classes . This is formed by putting the object in the genitive case instead of the accusative. So the sentence should be:

Sek! Anha char yeri.

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.

Secondly. When you express that something is something you don't use the accusative. The formula is that X-NOM Y-NOM means that X is Y. What this means is that you simply have both words in the nominative next to each other and that is what expresses "is". So the sentence should be:

Shafka lajak vezhven.

Me vos zhavvors.
Vorsa vos addriva zhavvors.
He no dragon.
Fire (does) not kill dragon. (I have a feeling something is missing here. I wonder if we'll be given a word for the verb "to do".

Feedback is appreciated.

Same thing here. In the first sentence you don't put zhavvors in accusative so it should be:

Me vos zhavvorsa.

I think the second sentence is almost correct. It's more common to express negatives in English with "to do" but Dothraki just uses vos. What you got wrong is that addriva should be addrivo since it's a negative sentence. So (I think) it should be:

Vorsa vos addrivo zhavvors.

[ingsve]

Sek! Anha char qisi yer.
Shafka lajakes vezhven.
Yes! I have heard about you.
You (are a) great warrior.

Me vos zhavvors.
Vorsa vos addriva zhavvors.
He no dragon.
Fire (does) not kill dragon. (I have a feeling something is missing here. I wonder if we'll be given a word for the verb "to do".

Feedback is appreciated.

Is the rs of zhavvors allowed as a coda? Wouldn't it have to be zhavvorse?

I haven't taken the time to learn all the phonology rules yet. Where are they, by the way?

Yes, it seems like /-rs/ is an allowed ending.

David wrote this on the Dothraki FB-page:

Vorsa laz addrivo vosecchi zhavvors! Viseris vos zhavvorsa. Fire could never kill a dragon. Viserys is not a dragon.

As for phonological rules, we don't know everything yet I think. There are the things on the epenthesis page and then there is the vowelsound change after q but other than that I don't think we have anything.

[Qvaak]

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!