Czech to Divehi: a relative pronoun may become a participial description
A Czech which clause need not retain a separate relative pronoun
Czech UD illustrates a book followed by kterou jsi koupila, which you bought. The relative expression belongs to a finite clause describing the book. Fritz’s Dhivehi grammar instead explains the regular use of participial constructions where a language such as Czech uses relative clauses.
A Divehi translation can therefore preserve the description without containing a separate equivalent of Czech kterou in the same position. Its absence does not automatically mean that the book has lost its connection with the purchase. The grammatical question is whether the target modifier identifies the right item through the right event.
The actor inside the description must remain distinct from the main actor
Czech UD’s example about seeing a man whom you love contains two relationships: someone sees the man, and you love him. The man is not automatically the actor of the relative clause simply because the clause describes him.
Fritz distinguishes participial descriptions whose head noun represents the actor from cases requiring a relative-clause interpretation in translation. For an original Czech message about the colleague who sent a parcel versus the colleague someone invited, preserve that difference. The first colleague acts inside the description; the second undergoes the inviting. A target participial phrase must not assign every described person the role of actor.
A participle need not make every described event past
In her Addu examples, Fritz contrasts descriptions of a person writing a letter, a person who wrote it, and a person who will write it. These are explicitly dialect-scoped illustrations of different event relationships, not three interchangeable descriptions of an already completed letter.
A Czech arrangement can identify the person who will prepare a document before the preparation occurs. Translating that phrase as the person who prepared it would imply completed work and could change who the recipient contacts. Conversely, a description identifying the person responsible for an earlier action should not become a promise of future action. Preserve the temporal relationship inside the modifier independently of the main clause’s tense.
The description can move before its head noun
Fritz places an attributive participle before the noun it qualifies. This differs from the Czech relative clauses in the UD examples, which follow the described noun. Word order must therefore be evaluated as a construction rather than retained from the source sequence.
An original Czech sentence might say that the colleague who will prepare the document is waiting outside. The waiting is the main assertion; the future preparation identifies the colleague. A Divehi translation should not promote the preparation into the main assertion merely because its modifier is encountered early. Nor should it attach outside to document preparation if the source locates the waiting colleague. Identify the head noun, its internal description, and the main predicate before comparing the order of the target words. That separation preserves the Czech information structure while allowing the target’s participial organization.
Language references