Bhojpuri to Marathi: shared script does not determine possession or prohibition
The possessed item determines an ending
Marathi possession includes forms such as चा, ची and चे whose grammatical agreement follows the possessed entity. The Universal Dependencies description explicitly separates that agreement from the owner. A Bhojpuri possessive reference must therefore identify both who owns something and which Marathi noun names the owned item.
A source message about one person’s different belongings cannot simply repeat a single Marathi possessive shape because the owner stays the same. If the target nouns differ in gender or number, the relevant agreement may differ too. Conversely, changing the possessive ending for an owned item does not mean the translated owner has changed. These are separate relationships inside the noun phrase.
A prohibition is not a negative identity
The Marathi description distinguishes नको, used for a negative imperative, from नाही, a negative form associated with being. The Bara-Parsa Bhojpuri grammar likewise distinguishes negative elements, including मत and the negative copula नइखे. A shared Devanagari script does not make these source and target elements interchangeable.
A Bhojpuri instruction telling someone not to perform an action should remain a prohibition. A source statement denying an identity or state should remain a report. Selecting a target negative expression only because it broadly means not can change what the listener is expected to do. Determine whether the source is directing behaviour or describing a situation before constructing the Marathi negative predicate.
Ability differs from a requirement
Marathi शकणे concerns ability, while पाहिजे can express a requirement or what ought to happen. In a Bhojpuri request, these are materially different meanings: whether the listener can do something does not establish that the listener must do it.
This matters when a source exchange combines a practical obstacle with an instruction. A writer may explain inability while acknowledging a requirement, or ask permission without asserting an obligation. A target modal selected by familiarity with a similar-looking Indo-Aryan word can collapse these distinctions. Preserve the relationship between the action and the speaker’s stance, rather than merely the action itself.
First-person number must survive the shared alphabet
The cited Bhojpuri grammar records हम as singular I and हमनी as plural we. Marathi interpretation should follow that source distinction rather than the meaning a reader associates with हम in another language. A singular owner or actor must not become a group during translation.
The Marathi description also recognizes an inclusive-versus-exclusive distinction in first-person plural reference. If a Bhojpuri group statement does not itself establish whether the listener belongs to that group, surrounding dialogue may be necessary to select the appropriate target interpretation. A shared script provides no answer to that participant question. Who owns the item, who is prohibited from acting and who belongs to a proposed group must each follow the Bhojpuri message, even where the target wording looks superficially familiar.
Language references