From Dothraki
Jump to: navigation, search



I want to make this more like this one: . Meaning, with IPA and examples, or original usage quotes. Thoughts? Lajaki 05:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can do something like this, we just need some kind of standard. — ochristi (t·c) 14:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to advance the look and functionality of the dictionary. Too heavy? Too unneeded? Too awesome? Discuss. Offer alternatives.


  • raggat [raggat]
vtr. to choke on something
past SG: ragge
  • rakh [rax]
  1. n. boy
  2. n. lamb
  • ramasar [ramasar]
na. plain(s)
accusative: ramsares
  • ray [raj]
adv. already
  • rea [rea]
na. organ
accusative: reaes
  • rek [rek]
det. that (when speaking of an inanimate object)
  • reki [rek]
det. that (when speaking of an animate object)
  • remekat [remekat]
v. to sleep
past SG: remek
  • rhae [ɾhae]
n. foot, leg
  • rhae mhar [ɾhae mhar]
n. sore-foot
  • rhaesh [ɾhaeʃ]
n. land, country
  • Rhaesh Andahli [ɾhaeʃ andahli]
prop n. Land of the Andals, Westeros
  • rhaesheser [ɾhaeʃeser]
na. world
accusative: rhaesheseres
Vezh fin saja rhaesheseres vo zigereo adoroon shiqethi. — The stallion that mounts the world has no need for iron chairs.
  • rhaggat [ɾhaggat]
n. cart
  • rhaggat eveth [ɾhaggat eveθ]
n. ship
  • rissat [rissat]
  1. vtr. to cut (slice)
  2. vtr. →abl to cut into
past SG: risse
Rakh risse yotoon. — The boy cut into the fruit.
  • riv [riv]
n. tip
  • rizh [riʒ]
na. son
accusative: rizhes
We might want the quote template to still put hte Dothraki text in boldface for consistency.--Ingsve 02:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The format is nowhere near perfect and would sorely need templates to be reasonably easily editable, but I think the ideas are clearly there: examplary sentences; supportive inflections... I actually strongly support supportive inflections (accusatives for nouns and past tenses for verbs, I think). It's a holistic, easy to read solution to managing with most irregularities and uncertainities. I'm not sure, how to best place such additional information, but that's just details. Edit: testing templates. --Qvaak..fini thira athdrivaride 02:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ya, this could be very useful especially for the verb classes since they will be the hardest thing for people to learn so if you have it collected with the specific verb in the vocabulary it's easier to find and use. It would also help with providing the correct accusative for the irregular nouns like tolorro- --Ingsve 21:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'm obviously trying to do this update thingy now. We'll see, if I ever get to A, but you all the others are of course welcome to do this instead. Then we might have something ready one day. Anyway, as discussed on the forum, I'm subsectioning some of the most systematically derived words to help unclutter the vocabulary. At the moment the only words I've deprived of their own entrys are stative thingys derived from adjectives: vin. to be [adjective]. Overall this feels like a sensible thing to do, but already there are doubts, too. zigerelat, for example, isn't what you'd systematically get from zigere, so I left it on it's own. But what, if there is systematic stative zigerelat too?--Qvaak..fini thira athdrivaride 02:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I Asked David about whether a word like zigerelat ever appears without the ablative and he said that he doesn't know what would could possibly mean so it seems like some of these verbs only make sense along with the verb class modification to their object. --Ingsve 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll help out when I get a feel for the structure your are currently implementing but I'm also reading A Dance with Dragons so that will occupy me as well for a while now. --Ingsve 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


I don't really have a venue for this, so I thought I'd write it here, since it's come up recently. There's a difference between a demonstrative modifier and a demonstrative pronoun. In English, "that" in "that book" is a demonstrative modifier; "that" in "Give me that" is a demonstrative pronoun. The two are identical in English, but not in other languages (e.g. in Spanish "ese libro" vs. "Dame eso" [though that example is a little contrived]). In Dothraki, the two differ. The form of the demonstrative modifier is invariant. There are, however, two different demonstrative pronouns (using jin as an example): jin (animate) and jini (inanimate). Each declines like an animate and inanimate noun, respectively. Nitsy 05:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess this is as good venue as any. Thanks for clarification. Vocabularywise I guess marking rek, jin and haz (there are probably already others, but these I think are the ones we have some resemblance of clarity about) as both determiners and pronouns will be a passable solution. Maybe I'll manage to add this to a Learning Dothraki article too.--Qvaak..fini thira athdrivaride 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Speculative words

I (as well as ingsve, I think) have for some time had an intention to browse through the dictionary and see, what words can be derived or back-formed (isn't that a back-formation from back-formation?) relatively mechanically from existing words. I thought about creating a post on the forum or a page proper on the wiki, but neither seemed an ideal place, so maybe here, then. Though I'm afraid this will not follow the proper talk format. I encourage you, dear reader, to participate.--Qvaak..fin thira athdrivaride 00:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I will be marking the more dubious ones with a question mark and the most likely with a bang.

Back-Formations from /ath- -(z)ar/

   athdikar speed → dik adj. fast

? I'm not sure, if final vowels of adjectives always carry on to statives and so forth to nominalizations, but I think they generally should (epenthesis at least seems to blur this too), so this seems to be derived from just dik or dikat. Our translations aren't that sharp so athdikar might well already more literally translate to fastness. Our size is more literally bigness, after all.

   athjerizar discussion → jerilat vtr. to discuss

This seems rather straightforward, but I find no supporting evidence. Edit: No, of course there is jerat, to trade. Jerilat is very likely an /-i/ derivation thereof, but I don't think we have a good understandig of /-i/ suffixes with verbs (even though some similarity to diminutives is quite evident). Some less morphological meaning shift probably occurs somewhere along the road, too.

   athrokhar fear → rokh adj. afraid

...and rokhat would be to be afraid. Seems plausible, though the tone might be wrong. Fearful, maybe?

   athlaqar wailing → laqat vin. to wail

This would make sense.

Back-Formations From Other Nominalizing Affixes

   chiftik cricket → chiftilat vin. to chirp

? There are many k-ending words that either aren't agentives or at least the root cannot be reasonably guessed, but chiftilat seems onomatopoetic and nice, so this seems reasonable enough that it's worth the guess.

   vilajerosh game → vilajero n. battle

? Guessing what /-i/ endings are proper diminutives and what the word should be without seems an ill job, but the /-sh/ ending is much more revealing, and this word in particular is interesting. There is clearly a durative of lajat, vilajerat - which no doubt means something along the line of to duel, to battle or to have a war campaign. It goes to figure: if you have a verb to battle, just turn it into a noun battle and then apply diminutive.. you'll have game. All good, but I'm little mystified by the /-o/ suffix. It does not seem to do anything we're used to seeing it do.

   heffof jug → heffe n. cup

? This is otherwise quite strong case (a jug is quite precisely a big cup, after all) but the geminated f causes some effin' uncertainity. There most likely is a final vowel in the word heffof is derived from. So is it that the jug is inanimate and /-(s)of/ skips all inanimate vowel endings? Or is it that there is the epenthetic /-e/ ending and that specifically does not count?

   ramasar plain(s) → rama n. field

? The root is very likely either ram or rama, no telling which. And the meaning? Who knows.

   graddakh waste, refuse shit → graddalat to defecate

If the root is a verb, this should be pretty probable. Any use as blue language?

   rhojosor family → rhojo n. family member

? Might be just "relative" or "close relative". The context "family" was taken from did not exactly denote to nuclear family. Might be just rhoj.

Back-Formations from verb circumfixes

   vichiterat to shiver → chitat vin. to shudder

? There are many unknowns. The root word might well be ichitelat, but I'd still hold chitat very likely (it's even somewhat onomatopoetic), and even the meaning difference between continuous to shiver, like from the cold, and much more passing shudder, "like someone just walked over my grave", seems rather natural.

   vijazerat to protect → jazat vtr. to shield

? Again there is no supportive evidence, so a leading or final vowel is somewhat possible. What would be less durative version of to protect? Of course the translation might just be the same, but as the dothraki are much on the fighting business, I'm betting on simple and concrete to shield.

   ejervalat to remove → jervat v. to add

? Jervat is the word, sure, but what does it mean, exactly? To attach, to hold, to leave be?

   esinalat to be different → inat vin. to prevail

? Even by it's meaning esinalat sounds like an opposite of some more basic verb, but it's hard to guess, what exactly. To be the same? Maybe, but would that be transitive or intransitive, then?

   zimemelat to distract → memat vin. to make noise

? This is an interesting one. We don't have any clear understanding of a verb circumfix that is roundabout /z(i)- -(e)/, but it seems something akin to english /off-/. We also have memzir, "bird noise", so one would expact mem to mean approximately "noise". So could a more literal translation to zimemelat be "to outvoice"? Quite hazy.

Back-Formations from Compound Words

Back-Formations from verbs to adjectives

   ivezhofolat to grow fierce → ivezhof adj. fierce

! ...and of course stative version, ivezhofat. We have ivezh, so there's not much doubt.

From Adjectives to Statives

I have no idea, how these are best handled, but here's the list of adjectives simply lacking statives in the vocab:

achra, afazh, akataki, ale, ataki, dave, ershe, fitte, gizikhven, haj, hakeso, haqeqqe, hasa, hoshor, ido, iste, ivezh, jahakmen, jil, jon, kathjilari, kazga, kim, lost, manimven, mezahe, mhar, negwin, niqe, ohazho, qoth, samva, samven, toki, verven, vezhven, vroz, zhikhak, zhilli, zhokakkwa, zhorre, zichome
achralat — to smell, afazhat — to be hot, ?akatakilat — to be second, ?alelat — to be more, ?atakilat — to be first, davelat — to be pungent, ershelat — to be old, fittelat - to be short, gizikhvenat — to be sweet, hajat — to be strong, hakesolat — to be famous, ?haqeqqat — to be exhausted, !hasat — to be sharp, hoshorat - to be golden, ?idolat — to be wooden, !istelat — to be proven, ivezhat — to be wild, jahakmenat — to be braidless, jilat — to be correct, jonat — to be sealed, ?kathjilarilat — to be right, kazgalat — to be black, kimat — to be original, lostat — to be disappointed, manimvenat — to be anxious, mezahelat — to be sexy, mharat — to be sore, negwinat — to be stone, niqat — to be rigid, ohazholat — to be heavy, qothat — to be repetitive, !samvat — to be broken, samvenat — to be numerous, vervenat — to be violent, vezhvenat — to be great, vrozat — to be slow, ?zhikhakat — to be sick, tokilat — to be dumb, zhillilat — to be general, !zhokakkwalat — to be enormous, ?zhorrelat — to be one's own, zichomelat — to be beautiful (for an animate noun)

I'm trusting these already enough to use the verb forms with little doubt (at least when the words end with consonant). But what to do with statives all in all? Now the most of those that are mentioned are on subsections of their respective adjectives. But is this good?

  • I removed the participle-form adjectives from above list. Even if they are dothraki-modernly mostly fixed adjectives, it doesn't seem likely that they would have a stative form, that there would be ezhirat — to dance, ezhiray — dancing and progressive-like ezhirayat — to be dancing.

discussion on specific words

There was a question added to the vocab page, if in addothralat [addoθɾalat] vtr. to convey, to transport someone "convey" was actually meant to be "convoy". Please help keep the vocabulary page clean and drop the questions here on the discussion page. The word addothralat was taken from New York Times article, where it was in a sentence Haz yer laz addothrae anna Vroklinoon? - Can you take me to Blooklyn?, so the direct translation would be take, and from the word we can see that by the derivation the sense would be something like to cause to ride. To take did not feel very informative, so I opted for approximation to convey, to transport, which on my limited English skills seemed close enough. To convey should have quite suitable sense, as in conveyor belt, but I'm not sure, how well it works there. Replace with a better one or remove, if it sounds wrong. To convoy, though, I think means something a bit else.--Qvaak..fin thira athdrivaride 16:41, 8 January 2012 (PST)
I see you added extra info on the use of various killing words. Do we really want to have all those explanations in the vocabulary? I already added the distinctions between the words in the Idioms/Specific uses page where things like that mighr be better suited.--Ingsve 23:16, 3 February 2012 (PST)
Well, yes. This is certainly a choice that can be argued against, but I think some explaining is needed (even if I may have done a bad job at the execution). The vocabulary should, IMO, manage to communicate the meaning(s) of the words, and to me it seems the difference between drozhat and addrivat isn't even on the nuances, but on level with, say, difference between killing and murdering (the difference is pretty similar, even). The vocab isn't a good place for any thorough explanations, so I think the Specific Uses is much needed, could actually even be separated into it's own page. Still, the vocab needs enough that the reader at least knows to ask for more detailed account.--Qvaak..fin thira athdrivaride 06:41, 5 February 2012 (PST)
Ya, splitting that into it's own page and adding more to it would certainly be a goal. In the vocabulary perhaps we could come up with suitable synonyms that make it clear that each words has more than one meaning and if needed we could always link to the specific uses segment from the vocabulary. --Ingsve 22:17, 7 February 2012 (PST)

Adding words from and @Dedalvs on Twitter?

Hi there!

I'm kind of new to Dothraki, but I follow David J. Peterson on Twitter (@Dedalvs) and sometimes read his blog, and sometimes he uses words there that aren't on this page. For example, he's used asshekh as a noun meaning "day", whereas here it's only listed as "adv. today". I was wondering: Is it okay for me to add words like this? [Or at least that which is clearly meant to be proper Dothraki; not derived words for FAX machines and iPhones and the like.] --LoghaD 16:20, 9 February 2012 (PST)

Feel free to add anything you find that isn't here already. We add things as we find them and sometimes things get missed so the more people helping out the better.--Ingsve 08:08, 10 February 2012 (PST)
Thank you for the response :) I added four words (eyelid (ni.), bird of prey (ni.), storm (n.) and born (adj.)); will add more as I finish analyzing them (very new to Dothraki, so it takes me a while to figure out such things as whether ivezhofa is a new adjective or a conjugation of ivezhofolat). --LoghaD 09:03, 11 February 2012 (PST)
Great. Try to remember to add tags for linking as well like <span id="vaz"></span> so that it's possible to link to the word from other places in the wiki. You also missed adding IPA on a word.--Ingsve 23:52, 11 February 2012 (PST)
Thanks for the heads up and for fixing it; hopefully I'll get better with practice :) --LoghaD 07:53, 12 February 2012 (PST)

Lol at me editing in the newly found out animacy of hrakkar and still mistyping it in all haste.--Ingsve 04:22, 1 March 2012 (PST)

Figuring out an updated look for the vocabulary

I thought we could work out a way to update the vocabulary by using a sample here that we could change until we find a way we are happy with.

One way could be like this:

  • tih [tih]
na. eye
athtihar ni. vision, look
attihat vtr. to show
tihat vtr. to look, to see
tihikh ni. view
tihilat vtr. to look at, to glance at
tiholat v. to understand
vitiherat v. to look upon, to stare at, to examine, to ponder
vitihirak na. watch, guard
vitihirat v. to watch, to observe

This has the advantage of sorting all words that use the root tih in one place which is what we are looking for. At the same time it has some disadvantages since it removed the IPA and link anchor for all the subcategorized words. It also doesn't leave room for the past tense and accusative case examples or examples of specific use of the word. Looking at it now I think it might be too limiting.--Ingsve 16:03, 14 April 2012 (PDT)

Well, if we'd go that way and rougly that far, I think the stem should be just a stem. It isn't always a word in itself. It would be clearer just to repeat the tih for "eye". I see no problem in having the quotations and support declinations after respective words. We can't lose all declination information, no matter what. Some of that info is vital, even if some of it can be inferred from the stem. We might of course code it like David does instead of having exampla declinations.
I think the general direction is the right one: collecting the words with the same root together. But I would be rather conservative with the change. We already are (at least in theory) grouping together adjectives and verb statives thereof, and I have always thought this grouping practice would & should be expended, just as soon as someone would make it eir (tha's Spivak, 'cause I sometimes get tired with gender pronouns - which Dothraki does without anywhoo) priority project. I certainly haven't yet.
On the forum Niqqo is speaking of another kind of direction: more word specific information. This is also worth a serious thought, though again I'm conservative. I can't really see the benefit on us making a page for every word.
Some view points to consider:
  • 1) Incompleteness
I think the vocab should be designed to work well on incomplete information. Our Wiki vocabulary has a lot of words we don't know terribly much about, and I think this will, and in a way even should, be the situation for unforseeable future. I think vocab should be the repository for all the words we have any concrete understanding. The dictionary can be more sophisticated, but the wiki should be just as complete as possible, even if that means we can't tell for sure, if some word is animate or inanimate, or, more to the point, if we are not sure, how to backtrack the word into its stem. Stem based dictionary is good for David. I think ours must be foremost based on the words themselves, and only secondarily, on cases we know well (if ever), should we collect words under some primitive word or stem.
  • 2) Noob Friendliness
I think our vocab should be easy to use without extensive knowledge about it's peculiarities. The more abstract the vocab is, more you must know before you can use it efectively. David uses declension types (A, B and some subcategories thereof), but I feel the supportive declensions, accusatives and past singles, demand much less from the reader - and, as far as we know, leave nothing to doubt. But that's just one thing; David's system isn't necessarily the least demanding (from the user perpective), and this must be weighed in. I'm a bit torn, if it's a good idea to move eg. verb nominalizations and causatives under the respective roots, because then they can't be found alphabetically. Granted, one tends to ctrl+f a lot anyway and the benefits might outweigh the disadvantages anyway, but it's not an easy choice for me.
  • 3) Informativiness
The foremost funtion of the vocab is to be informative. I don't think anything on the wiki now is unnecessary. The quotes are a good thing and there should be many more (I tried to update a bit but managed only A so far). We are, in the end, amateurs operating on scant information. Our concise dictionary explanations often leave a lot to be asked of specific nuances, correct syntax etc. When I create text in Dothraki I frequently go back to episode transcripts and other Peterson-birthed texts to see, what really is definitely correct sense and correct syntax. Well chosen examples are wonderfully compact info packets. All good dictionaries have them. I also think that a large part of the stuff on the idioms etc. page should be much more intimately linked to the vocab. ...and specific uses section might also benefit from polished structure (if not incorporated on the vocab, but probably better not). If the vocab starts to seem too cluttered because of the support stuff, we can entertain the possibility of introducing some show/hide buttons for support material. You see them sometimes in wiki style dictionaries.
  • 4) Up-Dateability
I'm always sceptical about creating more word lists, because there are rather few of us to develop this wiki, and we keep learning more all the time. Things tend to become outdated. Daenerys manages to keep the Word Groups page in good shape and Hrakkar is the editor of our pdf dictionary, but that's already more redundancy than we should really be able to keep maintaining. We should have this one vocabulary page and be very careful about any aspirations for more. And as long as we have only the one vocabulary page, I think one, big, simple, primarily alphabetical list is the best thing to have. This works and is manageable and usable. We do have cool features like anchors, so there's a lot of unused potential already.
--Qvaak..fin thira athdrivaride 19:01, 14 April 2012 (PDT)
Right now I feel after seeing the example I created that there really is rather limited usefulness to changing the way we already have it. So perhaps the best thing is to keep it as is it until we get something that recebles a complete dictionary.--Ingsve 20:03, 14 April 2012 (PDT)
One thought I had had when pondering Davids style of dictionary was that it would help in identifying ways to expand the vocabulary by adding all the diminutive, causatiev, durative etc versions of words but that is something that can just as easily be done on the forums by listing potential versions of words before they are confirmed enough to be added to the vocab.--Ingsve 20:06, 14 April 2012 (PDT)

Perhaps we should have some way to mark words that are not canon/diegetic/official (or which have a dubious status)?--Qvaak..fin thira athdrivaride 10:14, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

I added some non-canon words are marked them with quotation marks for now at least. Let's see how that works out.--Ingsve 02:41, 26 August 2012 (PDT)
Personal tools