Czech to Georgian: distinguish copular endings, reported speech and inability
A separate Czech copula can appear attached to a Georgian noun
Czech commonly writes forms of být as separate words. Georgian can attach a copular element to a nominal, so a shorter sequence of written words need not omit the source meaning is. Interpret the target morphology before deciding that every Czech word needs an independent Georgian counterpart.
The Georgian UD documentation contrasts saxlia, is a house, with saxlši, in the house, and saxlio, a house as someone said. Similar-looking endings therefore express different grammatical relations. They cannot be substituted merely because they share the same noun stem.
The CzechEncy copula entry distinguishes location from other uses of být. A source statement identifying something as a house differs from one locating something inside it. The Georgian distinction between a copular element and a postpositional ending should preserve that difference rather than create an apparently close but semantically altered phrase.
A reported claim should retain who supplies the information
The Georgian documentation describes the attached indirect-speech particle -o and contrasts it with -metki for as I said. These are report-related meanings, not decorative endings to add whenever a sentence refers to the past. The person responsible for the reported words remains relevant.
Czech can introduce reported content with an explicit reporting clause. The CzechEncy discussion gives a statement in which someone said that they had finished their work. Translation must preserve that reporting relationship, rather than present the embedded completion claim as an unqualified assertion by the current writer.
For a Czech exchange relaying another person’s update, establish which participant made the original claim and which participant now passes it on. A Georgian report marker can contribute that distinction inside the target wording. It should not invent a source of information absent from the Czech, nor remove the source’s explicit attribution.
Not doing and not being able to do are different denials
The Georgian UD overview distinguishes ar, not, from ver, not able. The Czech Academy’s dictionary likewise treats moci as a modal involving feasibility or ability in one of its central uses. A Czech negative statement containing such a modal may therefore require more than a generic target denial.
A source saying that a person cannot carry out a task differs from one merely saying that the person does not carry it out. The former can attribute the non-performance to ability or circumstances; the latter does not necessarily supply that explanation. Preserve the source modality before choosing the Georgian negative construction.
This comparison links three common Czech translation problems: separate copular words, explicit reporting clauses and modal negation. Georgian can distribute corresponding meanings differently across attached elements and independent particles. The cited UD page is a work-in-progress description of its annotation practices, so its short examples establish these contrasts without serving as an exhaustive grammar of every Georgian construction.
Language references