Comments for Dothraki http://www.dothraki.com A Language of Fire and Blood Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:04:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Modern Terminology by Hrakkarhttp://www.dothraki.com/2012/02/modern-terminology/#comment-315 Hrakkar Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:04:45 +0000 http://www.dothraki.com/?p=538#comment-315 The discussion regarding the use of 'word' for 'command' did bring to mind a place in English where 'word' is used for 'command', and I got a good education following up on it! Section 37 of Handel's <i>Messiah</i>, is a chorus with the text "The Lord gave the word; great was the company of the preachers". Since most of the <i>Messiah</i> is simply scripture from the King James Bible set to music, I was able to find that this text is an adaptation of Psalm 68:11, which indeed starts out with "The Lord gave the word". However, as the King James Bible does not reflect current, modern usage, I looked up this verse in much newer translations. The two most literal translations (The New American Standard, and the Holman Christian Study Bible) render 'word' as 'command'. I don't think this surprises any of us. However, the Amplified Bible, which gives a long-winded, wordy rendition of each verse, to emphasize the meaning, translates this as 'word (of power)'. This version, and the New American Standard then go on to say 'The women who proclaim the <i>good</i> tidings are a great host'. This clearly establishes 'word' as a command. However, the King James and the modern New International Version follow 'word' with something to the effect of 'great was the company of those who published <i>it</i>'. This rendition implies that 'word' is both a command and a message to be delivered at the same time. The italicized <i>it</i> indicates that this word is not in the original language. It was added by the translators to make this sentence make more sense in English. But does the omission of <i>it</i> take away from 'word' being both a command and a message at the same time? Thank you, zhey David for the kind words regarding the compound words. It gives me hope that someday I might be able to speak/write <b>Dothraki vichomer</b>. I think I will take your new car-word <i>hrakkarshiqethi</i> and have a bumper sticker made. It will fit perfectly, for as you may remember, the plates say 'lionman'! The discussion regarding the use of ‘word’ for ‘command’ did bring to mind a place in English where ‘word’ is used for ‘command’, and I got a good education following up on it!

Section 37 of Handel’s Messiah, is a chorus with the text “The Lord gave the word; great was the company of the preachers”. Since most of the Messiah is simply scripture from the King James Bible set to music, I was able to find that this text is an adaptation of Psalm 68:11, which indeed starts out with “The Lord gave the word”. However, as the King James Bible does not reflect current, modern usage, I looked up this verse in much newer translations. The two most literal translations (The New American Standard, and the Holman Christian Study Bible) render ‘word’ as ‘command’. I don’t think this surprises any of us.

However, the Amplified Bible, which gives a long-winded, wordy rendition of each verse, to emphasize the meaning, translates this as ‘word (of power)’. This version, and the New American Standard then go on to say ‘The women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host’. This clearly establishes ‘word’ as a command. However, the King James and the modern New International Version follow ‘word’ with something to the effect of ‘great was the company of those who published it‘. This rendition implies that ‘word’ is both a command and a message to be delivered at the same time. The italicized it indicates that this word is not in the original language. It was added by the translators to make this sentence make more sense in English. But does the omission of it take away from ‘word’ being both a command and a message at the same time?

Thank you, zhey David for the kind words regarding the compound words. It gives me hope that someday I might be able to speak/write Dothraki vichomer. I think I will take your new car-word hrakkarshiqethi and have a bumper sticker made. It will fit perfectly, for as you may remember, the plates say ‘lionman’!

]]> Comment on Modern Terminology by David J. Petersonhttp://www.dothraki.com/2012/02/modern-terminology/#comment-314 David J. Peterson Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:33:46 +0000 http://www.dothraki.com/?p=538#comment-314 As far as I know, no, you can't extend "word" to mean "command" in English (or at least not commonly); it's just "promise". As far as I know, no, you can’t extend “word” to mean “command” in English (or at least not commonly); it’s just “promise”.

]]> Comment on Modern Terminology by ingsvehttp://www.dothraki.com/2012/02/modern-terminology/#comment-313 ingsve Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:49:42 +0000 http://www.dothraki.com/?p=538#comment-313 That's interesting. Is there a specific reason or circumstance behind that extension? It's sort of a "my word is law" thing perhaps. In English the extended meaning of the word "word" would be more like "promise" or does the same word->command extension exist in English as well? That’s interesting. Is there a specific reason or circumstance behind that extension? It’s sort of a “my word is law” thing perhaps.

In English the extended meaning of the word “word” would be more like “promise” or does the same word->command extension exist in English as well?

]]> Comment on Modern Terminology by David J. Petersonhttp://www.dothraki.com/2012/02/modern-terminology/#comment-312 David J. Peterson Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:25:20 +0000 http://www.dothraki.com/?p=538#comment-312 Well, it's the same word in the way that "gutter" (in the street) and "gutter" (in bowling) is the same word. So, yes. The original meaning was "word", and it's been extended to mean "command". Well, it’s the same word in the way that “gutter” (in the street) and “gutter” (in bowling) is the same word. So, yes. The original meaning was “word”, and it’s been extended to mean “command”.

]]> Comment on Modern Terminology by ingsvehttp://www.dothraki.com/2012/02/modern-terminology/#comment-311 ingsve Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:28:33 +0000 http://www.dothraki.com/?p=538#comment-311 With the word for message given I think my preferred words for e-mail and text message would be assokhdik and assokhdikish. To me it makes sense for text message to simply be a diminutive of an e-mail since there really isn't that much of a difference other than e-mails generally being longer especially now that you can write and send e-mails with your phone just as easily as you can send a text message. We have "ase" to mean "word" as an inanimate noun. Is "ase" meaning "command" the exact same word or is it just a homophone? And if so is it also inanimate? With the word for message given I think my preferred words for e-mail and text message would be assokhdik and assokhdikish. To me it makes sense for text message to simply be a diminutive of an e-mail since there really isn’t that much of a difference other than e-mails generally being longer especially now that you can write and send e-mails with your phone just as easily as you can send a text message.

We have “ase” to mean “word” as an inanimate noun. Is “ase” meaning “command” the exact same word or is it just a homophone? And if so is it also inanimate?

]]> Comment on Just for Fun by loghaDhttp://www.dothraki.com/2012/02/just-for-fun/#comment-310 loghaD Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:12:25 +0000 http://www.dothraki.com/?p=532#comment-310 > While we’re on the topic of learning and > correcting mistakes…It’s anha not ahna. Thanks; I've looked that upp a million times and yet I keep getting it wrong. Hopefully now that I've been "called out" on it I'll remember :) A N H A... Arbitrary negligee? How arbitrary! > And another thing David missed or neglected > up there was that you wrote “asavvaoon” > when it should be “asavvasoon” with >an s in there since asavva is an animate noun. Ah, thank you! I thought it looked odd, but I think I'd somehow gotten the idea that the sky was inanimate. > While we’re on the topic of learning and
> correcting mistakes…It’s anha not ahna.

Thanks; I’ve looked that upp a million times and yet I keep getting it wrong. Hopefully now that I’ve been “called out” on it I’ll remember :)
A N H A…
Arbitrary negligee? How arbitrary!

> And another thing David missed or neglected
> up there was that you wrote “asavvaoon”
> when it should be “asavvasoon” with
>an s in there since asavva is an animate noun.

Ah, thank you! I thought it looked odd, but I think I’d somehow gotten the idea that the sky was inanimate.

]]>