Divehi to Gujarati: a marked actor can remain the actor of a completed action
The source does not supply a Gujarati ergative ending
Gnanadesikan explicitly states that Divehi does not have ergative case marking in any tense or aspect. Her general argument description puts subjects and direct objects in the unmarked direct case, while recognizing other constructions, including dative experiencers. An unmarked source actor therefore does not establish that every target actor must also be unmarked.
Hook’s Gujarati discussion contrasts a completed job with a future job. In the completed-action example, mE kaam kar-i lidh-U, the first-person actor is ergative and the verb agrees with the work expression. The future counterpart uses a different actor form and agreement pattern. These grammatical changes do not exchange the worker and the work.
For a Divehi message reporting that someone finished a task, a Gujarati ending associated with ergative marking can be appropriate even though no corresponding source ending exists. The actual event participants must remain the same. Requiring unchanged case appearance across languages would impose Divehi alignment on Gujarati rather than preserve the source meaning.
An object can influence agreement without becoming the actor
Irimia’s Gujarati analysis illustrates a woman buying a radio through Sudha-e radio khǝridy-o. The perfective verb has masculine singular agreement associated with the radio, while Sudha remains the buyer. A target verb’s gender is consequently not a reliable standalone clue to the buyer’s gender or identity.
This distinction is useful when the Divehi text leaves gender unmarked. Do not infer a male buyer merely from a masculine Gujarati verb form in this construction. Establish which noun controls agreement before deciding whether the translation added gender information about the person.
The study also documents default agreement in particular nonreferential object readings, with speaker and construction qualifications. It does not support a simple claim that every Gujarati completed transitive verb always agrees with a visibly identifiable object. When reviewing a target task report, recover the actor and object first, then assess agreement within the actual target construction.
A dative-looking ending can mark the affected person
Irimia further describes Gujarati differential object marking with -ne, a form shared with dative marking. A person affected by a transitive action can bear that ending and still function as its direct object. A dative-looking target form therefore does not automatically create a recipient of a transfer.
Divehi itself requires attention to verb selection: Gnanadesikan contrasts typical dative indirect objects with a sociative indirect object selected by an entrusting expression. The source and target thus both resist interpreting every participant from a case label alone, although their particular patterns differ.
For this direction, distinguish the completed action, its performer and the affected person or thing. Gujarati can mark an actor, show agreement with an object and give that object an ending resembling a dative without reversing those roles. The practical meaning survives through the relationships among participants, not through a one-to-one match of source and target endings.
Language references