"Drējī azantys iksan."
Translation:I really am a knight.
22 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I think both of you are right and "Soldier"/"Warrior" should be included because in the wiki they do define "Azantys" as soldier and warrior. It just depends if the contributors decide to spend the time editing the course to accept solder/warrior. Here's a link and other translations of Azantys. https://wiki.dothraki.org/High_Valyrian_Vocabulary knight, soldier, warrior, swordsman, swordswoman
It seems to me that the general vocabulary/thesaurus hasn't been fully fleshed out yet and that's why this happened. Unless, of course, there are discrete words for those, despite them being synonyms? I mean, warrior isn't exactly the same as knight or swordsman - they are, to a degree, mutually exclusive. One can be a warrior and not a knight or swordsman, and vice-versa. Unless High Valyrian doesn't have a concept for a knight or swordsman who CANNOT be a warrior?
True, it is a brand new course and a conlang rather than a 'real' language so I can understand that there are a few hiccups.
I have more of a problem with the word knight being a potential translation; knights are a very Westerosi/Andal thing; I doubt Valyrians would have cared enough to have a word for them until the Targaryens moved to Westeros before the Doom. The only Valyrians that would have interacted with knights would have been the Targaryens, and the few other Valyrian families that joined them. Maybe they would have just used 'azantys' to refer to knights, but knights are a specific sort of swordsman/warrior, using the word azantys to describe them would be like using the same word for lizard as you would for dragon.
I feel like in this instance "knight" Refers to someone who is apointed to fight for the family or kingdom. It doesnt necesarrily have to be the same sort of knight ship as in westeros, but its sort of the same concept. Theres also probably not a word to differentiate between knight and soldier, just like there wasnt a word for throne in dothraki. In this instance i think the point is to relate it back to something that everyone knows, and perhaps duolingo should except soldier as an answer because of that.
Despite being semantically close, "in truth" isn't the same as "truly". We have another word for "in truth / actually / in fact", which is "drīvose", meaning a revelation/corroboration is being stated, whereas "drējī" ("truly", "really", "very") just intensifies/emphasizes what is being said. I can see a subtle difference in the two sentences, can't you? ;)