Catalan to Northern Kurdish: following the participants across present and past
The person who sees is still the person who sees
Thackston’s Kurmanji grammar contrasts Ez te dibînim, meaning “I see you,” with Min tu dîtî, meaning “I saw you.” The change from ez to min does not exchange the participants. In the past transitive construction, the actor and the person seen use a different grammatical pattern. A Catalan reader should therefore track the event’s participants rather than interpreting a changed Kurdish pronoun as evidence that “I” and “you” have been reversed.
Catalan marks subject and object distinctions too, but the Kurmanji contrast is specifically connected with the past transitive construction. Thackston distinguishes its pattern from present transitive and past intransitive sentences. This makes the verb’s construction important: do not apply the past-transitive interpretation to every Kurdish past sentence simply because it contains min. The actual grammatical role must be established from the complete clause.
A Catalan past auxiliary is not an additional action
CPNL identifies vaig comprar as a Catalan periphrastic past. It describes entirely finished past situations and chronological sequences among its uses. Before rendering a Catalan narrative into Kurmanji, treat this as one past event rather than a present act of going followed by buying. Otherwise the target could acquire a journey that the source never described, while the actual transitive event receives the wrong temporal interpretation.
CPNL also distinguishes vam from the independent present anem. A reader translating an update about what a group did should recover that source tense before analyzing the Kurdish result. The important connection is between the Catalan construction and the event it places in the past, not a resemblance between the auxiliary and some target word. That source-side decision is independent of the target’s rearrangement of pronoun roles.
Possessor and possessed object are different sources of agreement
Catalan el meu and la meva both identify the speaker as possessor; their difference follows the grammatical gender of the possession. CPNL’s table separately distinguishes one possessor from several possessors. These are separate questions to carry into a Kurmanji rendering: who owns the item, how many owners are involved and which item is meant. A feminine Catalan possessive is not evidence that the owner is female.
Thackston gives kitêba min for “my book.” It illustrates a target construction in which the possessor follows the noun, rather than preserving the Catalan possessive’s normal position before it. Such a change of order can retain the original ownership relationship. Judge it by whether the same person possesses the same item, not by whether the first word corresponds to the first word of the Catalan phrase.
Northern Kurdish is a specific target, not just another script
Sina Ahmadi’s research distinguishes Kurmanji, where Latin script is widely used, from Sorani, whose speakers favour a Persian-Arabic script. For Catalan-to-Northern-Kurdish translation, shared Latin letters do not make the task a spelling conversion. Conversely, changing a Sorani sentence into Latin letters does not by itself produce Kurmanji. Keep the requested Northern Kurdish variety distinct when interpreting the grammatical forms discussed here.
Language references