Bodo to Norwegian: the position of an owner expression changes the noun form
A Bodo possessive suffix does not supply Norwegian word order
Narzary’s Bodo paradigm identifies possession with -ni on personal pronouns. Its first-person plural possessive identifies the group as owner, without telling a Norwegian translator which side of the possessed noun should carry the target owner expression.
NTNU’s Norwegian on the Web lesson contrasts min bil with bilen min, both referring to my car. In the first construction the noun is indefinite in form; in the second it is definite. Consequently, a Bodo possessive phrase cannot be transferred by relocating only the owner while leaving the Norwegian noun unchanged. The noun and possessor must be constructed together.
The possession’s gender is not the owner’s gender
The NTNU paradigm illustrates mitt hus and mine bøker for my house and my books. Its changing possessive forms track properties of the possessed noun. The same person can own both, so the change does not require a new owner.
This matters for Bodo third-person possession because Narzary’s personal-pronoun system lacks a male–female distinction. A translator must not use that absence as a reason to leave all Norwegian possessive forms invariant. Conversely, a neuter target form associated with a house says nothing about the owner’s gender. Two distinct pieces of information are involved: identifying the Bodo possessor and constructing the Norwegian possession.
A neutral Bodo owner may also be the clause’s actor
NTNU distinguishes third-person reflexive sin, si, sitt, sine from ordinary hans, hennes, deres when the local subject owns the relevant object or participates as the owner in the relevant prepositional phrase. Its explanation emphasizes the subject of the same clause, including subordinate clauses.
A Bodo bini, his or her, therefore needs more than a choice between a male and female Norwegian possessor. If the source describes an actor taking their own belongings, the relationship differs from the same actor taking someone else’s belongings. The source pronoun’s gender neutrality does not settle that relation, and establishing its owner does not eliminate the need to identify the local actor.
Number can be expressed away from the Bodo noun ending
Narzary documents Bodo repeated-adjective examples interpreted as plural descriptions without adding a plural suffix to the noun. A source account of several new possessions must therefore be read as a complete phrase before the Norwegian noun and possessive forms are selected.
For an original passage describing a person examining new clothes belonging to their own group, distinguish the number of garments from the number of owners. Several garments can belong to one person, and one shared item can belong to several people. The Norwegian possession’s number and the possessive expression’s owner reference answer different questions. Combine that interpretation with the target word-order choice: moving an owner expression before the noun changes the required noun form, while a later reflexive choice depends on the clause’s actor. None of these decisions can be recovered from the Bodo genitive suffix alone.
Language references