Bodo to Kashmiri: self-reference must follow the right clause
The source reflexive identifies a relationship between participants
Narzary’s Bodo description treats reflexive constructions as ones where subject and object identify the same entity. Its examples include a first-person actor referring back to themself, with alternative reflexive formations. This provides a useful starting point for recognizing self-directed actions rather than introducing another participant.
Koul’s account of Kashmiri distinguishes pa:n, self, from the possessive reflexive panun. A Bodo sentence about somebody seeing themself and one about somebody cleaning their own room do not call for the same target structure simply because both involve the actor. Identify whether the source expression represents the affected person or identifies the owner of a different item.
Possession introduces agreement with the item owned
Bodo possessive pronouns in Narzary’s paradigm are formed with -ni. Its third-person possessive does not distinguish a male from a female owner. This makes it particularly important to separate what the source tells us about an owner from what Kashmiri needs to express about the possession.
Koul states that possessive panun agrees with the following noun in gender and number. The relevant agreement therefore concerns the item owned rather than simply copying the owner’s sex. An original translation situation with a woman referring to her own room and a man referring to his own room need not produce two possessive forms merely because the owners differ. A change in the possessed noun can require a change even when its owner stays the same.
A main-clause speaker is not always the local antecedent
Koul illustrates restrictions on Kashmiri reflexives across finite subordinate clauses. In his reported-speech examples, ordinary personal reference can refer back to the main-clause participant where replacing it with a reflexive is rejected. The source actor and the nearest target clause therefore cannot be treated as interchangeable notions.
For a Bodo report meaning that a person said they would arrive on time, first identify who will arrive and who made the statement. Even if these are the same individual, a reflexive target form cannot be selected solely on that basis. The finite reported clause has its own structure, and Kashmiri reference must respect it.
Not every embedded structure has the same restriction
Koul also discusses nonfinite and small-clause constructions where reflexive interpretations can be available, including ambiguity about which participant serves as antecedent. That qualification prevents an equally misleading rule that a Kashmiri reflexive can never refer across any embedded expression.
A Bodo instruction relaying that one person told another to bring tea for themself needs more than a pronoun substitution. Establish whether the intended beneficiary is the person giving the instruction or the person carrying it out, then construct the Kashmiri request accordingly. Where the source leaves that relationship unresolved, do not present one reading as if Bodo had explicitly selected it. The contrast with a finite arrival report is structural: self-reference depends on the kind of clause and the participants within it, as well as on shared real-world identity.
Language references