Catalan to Bosnian: resolve the owner before choosing svoj
Catalan possessive agreement does not identify the owner by itself
The Institut d’Estudis Catalans explains that tonic possessives agree in gender and number with the noun they accompany. Forms such as seu and seva therefore provide information about the possessed noun. Do not interpret the feminine form as proof that the owner is a woman when translating a Catalan passage into Bosnian.
The same guidance describes llur as a third-person possessive equivalent to belonging to them, with llurs for more than one possessed item. Owner plurality and item plurality are distinct. A plural possessive form in a source phrase should not automatically make the owner a group in the target.
In a workplace message, a document may belong to the person acting in the sentence, to a colleague already mentioned or to a team. Establish that relationship from the surrounding Catalan passage. Choosing a Bosnian possessive before identifying the owner risks changing whose document the message concerns.
Bosnian svoj tracks a relationship to the subject
The BCS textbook’s Bosnian dialogue includes On svoj posao voli, concerning a person’s own work. Its grammar explanation distinguishes svoj from a possessive referring to somebody else’s work. In the construction described, the important question is whether the possessor is the sentence’s subject, not merely whether the item is familiar.
This creates a decision that the Catalan possessive’s visible ending cannot settle on its own. If the Catalan sentence concerns a person presenting their own proposal, the Bosnian construction must preserve that self-related ownership. If the proposal belongs to someone else, inserting svoj can falsely transfer ownership to the presenter.
The textbook also notes that svoj is optional beside ordinary possessives in the first and second persons in its illustrated constructions. Do not treat every difference from a memorized target phrase as an error. Check the subject–owner relationship and the target construction actually being used.
Changing the sentence’s subject can change the possessive choice
Consider a report about a manager and an assistant. One sentence may make the manager the actor; a revision may make the assistant the actor while still referring to the manager’s document. The underlying owner has not changed, but a reflexive possessive tied to the new subject may now express the wrong relationship.
Likewise, joining two Catalan sentences can introduce a new subject boundary. A possessive in the second event may refer back to someone in the first event rather than to the person performing the second action. Preserve that reference instead of assuming the nearest actor is always the owner.
When the source genuinely leaves ownership ambiguous, a specific name or explicit owner phrase can be useful only if the context establishes it. Do not invent an owner to obtain a more definite-looking Bosnian sentence. If clarification is possible, ask whose item is meant; if it is not, preserve the uncertainty rather than silently assigning ownership.
The resulting Bosnian message should identify the same owner, the same item and the same actor as the Catalan original. Those three roles may coincide, but they should never be merged merely because one possessive form is convenient.
Language references