Bulgarian to Hindi: why the object can control a completed-action form
The person doing the action need not control the Hindi participle
Bulgarian verbal aspect does not mechanically select Hindi ने. Snell’s table distinguishes perfective constructions that require ne from those that do not. The relevant verb and construction must be identified before choosing this marking.
In a ne construction, the participle can agree with the logical object. Snell illustrates a male reader with feminine plural books. A participle unlike the actor’s gender is consequently not sufficient evidence of a mistake.
For a Bulgarian report about a colleague reading documents, distinguish who read them from which documents were read. A correction to the object’s number can affect the Hindi form even when the colleague remains unchanged. Checking agreement only against the person’s name misses the relationship that the target construction expresses.
Snell treats intransitive coming and going separately from verbs taking ne. A report combining arrival with completed work can therefore use different patterns for the two events.
An explicitly marked object can change the agreement again
Snell explains that an object marked with को in this construction leads to masculine singular default agreement. Object agreement in one sentence and default agreement in another are therefore compatible with referring to the same event.
This is not permission to add or remove को to repair a form by eye. The object marker belongs to the intended Hindi construction. A Bulgarian reader should establish which item or person is affected before interpreting the resulting agreement.
For a report about identifying a particular visitor, distinguish that visitor from an unspecified person. Keep the identifying description in the source instead of reducing it to a generic noun. If the target contains object marking, read it together with the verb rather than treating the marked noun as an unrelated recipient.
Bulgarian itself can use short object pronouns and clitic doubling. Those familiar ways of identifying an object do not establish a matching Hindi suffix or agreement pattern. The same event roles can be expressed through different grammatical arrangements in the two languages.
A phrase verb may contain the agreement-relevant noun
In noun-based expressions with करना, Snell shows agreement with the internal noun, including the expression for attempting something. The outer subject is not the only noun relevant to the participle.
A Bulgarian message saying that someone tried to perform a task should therefore retain the attempt meaning. Replacing it with a report that the task was performed changes the event as well as potentially changing the Hindi construction. An attempted delivery and a completed delivery are different outcomes.
This also explains why a dictionary verb is an incomplete guide to a longer target expression. Hindi may express a meaning through a noun and a light verb where Bulgarian uses a different verbal structure. Inspect the expression as a unit rather than interpreting the light verb alone as the whole action.
For an account involving arrival, an attempt, and a completed result, keep those stages distinct in Bulgarian. Their Hindi forms can legitimately follow different agreement patterns. The relevant question is which construction expresses each event, rather than whether every past-looking clause ends in the same way.
Language references