Divehi to Basque: inactive does not automatically mean a passive sentence
Source stem classes and target argument structure answer different questions
Fritz classifies Divehi verbs through active a-stems and inactive e-stems, while warning that these are primarily morphological classes. She notes primary e-stem verbs without a corresponding active counterpart, including forms meaning receive and want. The inactive label cannot always be replaced by an ordinary passive paraphrase.
Laka’s Basque grammar distinguishes transitive and intransitive constructions through their arguments, case marking and auxiliary selection. Its example katua joan da describes the cat leaving, with an absolutive participant and a be auxiliary. That target pattern is chosen for the actual Basque predicate, not for a source stem-class name.
For an original Divehi statement about someone receiving a letter, determine whether the source simply reports receipt or actually describes a passive relation involving a sender. Expanding every inactive form as was given by someone could add an actor and event structure absent from the source.
An original statement about wanting a letter requires another lexical construction again. The fact that receive and want appear in the same source morphological discussion does not establish that their Basque translations must take the same arguments or auxiliary. The target predicates need to be analysed individually.
This prevents a false shortcut: source inactive does not universally select Basque be, while source active does not universally select have. Preserve the source event and identify the target predicate’s actual construction before selecting the case forms of its participants.
An apparent single-actor event can still have an ergative target actor
Laka illustrates irakasleak hitz egin du, the teacher has spoken, in her discussion of borderline transitive or unergative predicates. The actor is ergative and the construction uses have even though an English summary can describe speaking as an intransitive activity. Basque grammatical behaviour cannot be inferred from the number of obvious people alone.
For a Divehi source account identifying a teacher who spoke, keep the teacher as actor without trying to convert the Basque ergative form into a source-of-information phrase. A person who spoke and a person from whom information was obtained can be related in a story, but they are not the same grammatical relationship.
Fritz separately describes standard Divehi kuren after a person expression as from the side of. That source construction deserves its own reading. It should not be imposed on every Basque actor simply because a target ergative ending is unfamiliar, nor should a genuine source relationship be erased as if it only marked an actor.
Compare an original source account of a teacher speaking with one about receiving a message from that teacher. The first identifies an actor; the second identifies a source and a receiver. A Basque translation must retain whichever arrangement the source actually asserts.
The practical distinction is between morphological classification, lexical meaning and participant structure. Divehi active and inactive stems organize one part of its grammar; Basque case and auxiliary choices organize another. Translate the event first, then express its actors, receivers and sources through the appropriate target construction instead of matching terminology across the two systems.
Language references