Divehi to Dari: noun endings do not reveal number in the same way
A bare target noun need not describe one item
Divehi distinguishes several plural patterns, including a general nonhuman ending and different formations for people. In a source message those endings can make a group visible even before the reader reaches the predicate. Spoken Dari, as described by Entezar, can leave a common noun without its plural ending when the emphasis is simply on the existence of that kind of thing. A translation should therefore preserve the intended quantity without assuming that every source plural needs an overt plural suffix in the target.
The Dari example ma ketaab daarom can mean that the speaker has a book or has books. Its bare noun does not settle the number by itself. If the Divehi source explicitly identifies several books, the translator must retain that information through an appropriate target construction; if it merely discusses possession of books as a category, a mechanical plural ending may be unnecessary. The relevant question is whether number is asserted, not whether two written nouns look equally marked.
Numbers identify their own relationship to the noun
Entezar gives do ketaab for two books, with the noun lacking the ordinary plural suffix after the numeral. This is a target construction, not a claim that only one book exists. Divehi also has numeral forms used before nouns, alongside expanded forms used in counting. The form used to count independently should not be transplanted blindly into a noun phrase simply because both expressions concern the same number.
There is an additional source trap with names and kin terms. Divehi associative formations can describe a named person together with their group, rather than several individuals who happen to share the same name. Converting that expression into an ordinary Dari plural of the personal name could suggest a different membership. Establish whether the source counts individual objects, identifies a human group, or names a person and associates before deciding what the target noun and quantity expression must convey.
Definiteness can appear on the object instead
Divehi commonly leaves definite nouns unmarked while adding an ending to form an indefinite noun. Its ordinary direct case can serve both subject and direct object. The translator cannot therefore identify a target object marker merely by looking for an equivalent source accusative ending: the source construction does not make that distinction in the same way. Its definiteness pattern and the role of the noun have to be interpreted together.
In Entezar’s spoken Dari description, ketaaba kharidom means I bought the book. The object marker contributes to identifying the book, whereas an unmarked object can have a nonspecific reading. His account also notes lexical exceptions, including the verb meaning like, so the contrast should not be elevated into an exceptionless rule. A definite Divehi book object may thus acquire visible target marking despite looking bare in the source. Conversely, a source plural ending supplies number information rather than permission to ignore the target object construction. Keeping these two decisions separate prevents an identified set from becoming an unspecified item, or a category reference from becoming a particular collection.
Language references