Divehi to Armenian: the bare noun can signal the opposite definiteness pattern
An added ending does not have the same function in both languages
Gnanadesikan’s Divehi description often treats a bare noun as definite, while an indefinite noun receives a suffix. The examples refrī and refrīek̊ distinguish the referee from a referee. An Armenian translation cannot preserve that contrast merely by matching bare forms with bare forms and suffixed forms with suffixed forms.
Dum-Tragut’s Modern Eastern Armenian grammar describes definite marking through a suffixed article, while indefinite reference can occur with a bare noun or a preceding indefinite article. The languages therefore put different interpretive work into an ending’s presence. A target noun that acquires a suffix can preserve the source’s definite reading rather than reverse it.
A bare target noun can introduce a new object
The Armenian grammar illustrates namak, letter, without a definite suffix in a sentence about a woman bringing an unspecified letter. The woman and the letter do not share the same reference status simply because both participate in one event. The target phrase must express whether each entity is identified or newly introduced.
For a Divehi report about an identified referee receiving an unspecified document, interpret the source nouns separately. Copying their apparent morphological simplicity into Armenian can make the wrong participant look unspecified. The event’s actor and recipient do not automatically determine definiteness; an already known actor can interact with a newly introduced object.
A definite suffix can have different surface shapes
Dum-Tragut describes the Armenian article’s -ĕ and -n shapes in relation to the noun’s final sound and the sound of the following word. Consequently, a changing target ending does not necessarily indicate a different person or a change in whether the referent is definite. The same identifying contribution can have more than one surface form.
Divehi indefinite and definite morphology also interacts with the noun’s form, including special definite marking for some human nouns. That familiarity should encourage reading the construction rather than freezing one string of letters, but it does not supply the Armenian distribution rule. Determine the target noun phrase and its surroundings rather than selecting an article shape from the source noun’s ending.
An absent Armenian article does not always prove semantic indefiniteness
The Armenian grammar explicitly distinguishes morphological marking from semantic reference. It describes environments, including certain case forms and inherited plural nouns, where an article is absent despite a potentially definite interpretation. Thus the simple contrast between bare and suffixed forms is a useful starting point, not an exception-free translation algorithm.
Divehi likewise has more than a binary source distinction, including an unspecified form whose interpretation can involve some or other or any. Before translating, establish whether the message identifies an entity, introduces an unspecified one or deliberately leaves the choice open. Then select the Armenian construction appropriate to that meaning and grammatical environment. A correct translation may add a target suffix, omit one or use another determiner without copying the source boundary. The decisive question is which entity the complete phrase refers to and how specifically, not whether both versions display the same number of endings. This guide concerns Modern Eastern Armenian and the northern/standard Malé Divehi description.
Language references