Divehi to Inuktitut: a question ending can identify both the actor and the affected person
A yes-or-no marker does not independently specify the participants
Fritz illustrates a Divehi question asking whether the listener knows English, with the particle ta contributing to the question construction. The source enquiry has to be interpreted together with its predicate and participants; the question marker alone does not identify an object such as me.
Pirurvik’s South Qikiqtaaluk lesson contrasts tukisivit, do you understand, with tukisivinnga, do you understand me. The second contains an ending representing both the listener as subject and the speaker as object. Losing that object distinction can change what the listener is being asked to confirm.
For an original Divehi question about whether someone understands the speaker, an Inuktitut form asking only about understanding in general can leave out an important participant. A reply saying yes may then confirm comprehension of a subject or situation rather than comprehension of that person.
Conversely, adding the target ending meaning me to a source question about understanding an explanation could make the speaker the grammatical object. The speaker may have delivered the explanation, but that does not make the two questions identical. Preserve the actual source object before selecting the target ending.
The target lesson presents its forms in Latin transcription for the stated dialect. They are used here to explain the participant contrast, not to claim that a change of writing system alone creates another grammatical person or object. Interpret the source relationship before rendering the selected Inuktitut form.
A different ending can reverse the enquiry’s direction
The same lesson gives qaujimavara as asking whether I know him or her. The person doing the knowing is now the speaker, not the listener. An original Divehi enquiry about whether you know someone must not become a target question about whether I know that person.
Fritz’s Divehi pronoun paradigms distinguish first, second and third person independently from the question construction. Her standard third-person singular form ēnā does not itself distinguish male from female. The translator should retain the source person relations without inventing a gender distinction absent from that pronoun.
Pirurvik’s question examples likewise gloss relevant third-person objects as him or her. The useful decision here is therefore who knows or understands whom, rather than forcing an English-style gender choice. Names or other context can still identify the person when the source makes that identity relevant.
Compare an original source exchange asking whether a visitor hears the speaker with one asking whether the speaker hears the visitor. The same two people occur, but their roles reverse. Matching the hearing root while selecting the wrong target person combination would produce the opposite question.
This exact-direction issue arises because Divehi question-related material and Inuktitut double endings distribute information differently. Identify the source subject, the affected participant and the fact being queried, then select the appropriate target combination. A correctly formed question can still ask the wrong thing if its ending assigns the speaker and listener to the wrong roles.
Language references