Divehi to Hebrew: an unmarked source noun can still identify a definite object
Do not treat every bare Divehi noun as indefinite
Gnanadesikan’s Divehi grammar distinguishes definite, indefinite and unspecified noun forms. Definite forms are usually unmarked, although some human nouns have a definite singular ending. Her referee example contrasts refrī with refrīek̊ and refrīaku. The latter forms introduce indefinite or unspecified reference; a bare form is not simply a noun with missing grammar.
This matters when the Divehi sentence discusses a previously identified person or item. A Hebrew translation must preserve whether the reference is established or introduced indefinitely. Requiring an explicit source equivalent of the before allowing a definite target noun would ignore how Divehi marks this distinction.
The grammar also separates the indefinite suffix from a preceding numeral meaning one. The two can look closely related historically but serve different constructions. A source indefinite object should not automatically become an emphatically counted single item in Hebrew. Preserve whether the sentence introduces a referent or stresses its quantity.
A definite target object can need extra connecting material
Rocquet’s study of direct-object marking illustrates the Hebrew contrast through a movie showing the war versus a movie showing a war. The definite object receives ’et, while the indefinite object in the comparison does not. The distinction belongs to the target noun phrase’s reference, not to an additional action performed by the movie.
Divehi uses its unmarked direct case for most subjects and direct objects in Gnanadesikan’s account. Consequently, a source object can have no separate accusative-like marker even where Hebrew supplies ’et. The presence of an additional target element does not establish that the translator invented another participant.
Before evaluating that element, determine that the source phrase really is the object and establish its definiteness. A previously identified referee being observed and an unspecified referee being sought are different reference situations. The target object construction must follow the intended situation, rather than a rule that all human objects or all source bare nouns receive identical treatment.
Number endings do not independently establish the noun’s gender
The Hebrew Academy notes that plural noun suffixes do not always follow the same gender distribution as adjective suffixes: some masculine nouns have an -ot plural, and some feminine nouns an -im plural. Adjective agreement still follows the noun’s grammatical gender and number.
Divehi has no corresponding masculine-versus-feminine agreement category in its noun system. When a source object becomes a Hebrew plural noun phrase, a familiar-looking target suffix is therefore insufficient to identify its gender or select every modifying form. The selected Hebrew noun supplies that grammatical information.
For this direction, reference and agreement must be assessed separately. A noun can identify an already established object, carry a plural ending and require agreement that cannot be guessed from that ending alone. Keeping the source object and its quantity intact permits Hebrew to express definiteness and agreement through its own constructions without importing distinctions that the Divehi message never asserted.
Language references