Bodo to Hindi: an object marker is not a universal instruction to add को
The marked source object must be interpreted in its construction
Krishna Boro’s 2026 research abstract distinguishes obligatory from variable object marking in Bodo. It connects variation with the prominence of an object in discourse and with properties such as specificity, human reference, or contrast. The abstract does not support a rule that every Bodo object must always display an identical marker.
Rupert Snell’s Hindi Skeleton Grammar likewise distinguishes uses of को, including specific direct objects and indirect objects. These target patterns need interpretation through the Hindi predicate. A Bodo marked object therefore does not mechanically select को in every translation, and an unmarked source noun is not proof that the corresponding Hindi object must remain unmarked.
A recipient differs from a person directly affected by the action
Narzary’s Bodo pronoun paradigm separates direct-object forms from indirect-object forms. A source person receiving an item and a source person being called or seen consequently need their actual roles preserved before target wording is selected.
Snell illustrates राम को बुलाओ for calling Ram, while separately discussing giving money to a recipient with को. The same target marker can therefore occur with different relationships. Translating the Bodo case form requires identifying what Ram does in the event, not merely choosing Hindi letters for a grammatical label. A recipient must not accidentally become the thing given.
An experiencer can also receive a को construction
Snell gives मुझको हिन्दी पसन्द है for liking Hindi. In this target construction, the person experiencing the preference is marked with को. That is different from treating the person as a straightforward actor performing an action on an object.
A Bodo statement about someone’s preference or knowledge should thus be translated through the selected Hindi expression rather than forced into an actor-object pattern. Narzary’s separate subject and object paradigms identify source reference, but they are not a table of fixed Hindi equivalents. Preserve which person has the experience even if the target organizes that participant differently.
Discourse emphasis should survive without an invented event role
Boro’s abstract emphasizes that source object marking can reflect how a speaker makes a participant prominent for a communicative purpose. That contribution concerns the presentation of an object, not a change from object to actor. A contrastively important source item still needs its role maintained in Hindi.
For this direction, interpret the event and its participant relationships before selecting the Hindi construction. Then consider whether source emphasis or specificity needs additional expression in the target. The same Devanagari script does not align the case systems automatically: source marking, target को, and the predicate’s organization of an experiencer are different grammatical decisions. A fluent result can otherwise retain all the named people while changing who receives, who experiences, or what is affected.
Language references