Divehi to Malay: distinguish denying an identity from correcting an action
A source no is not a permanent Malay word choice
Divehi nūn can negate an identity and can also serve as a negative answer in Fritz’s standard-language account. Those uses should not be collapsed into a single Malay substitution. The Malay construction depends on what is being denied, and a reply word needs to be interpreted against the question it answers.
Fritz distinguishes nūn from the negative existential nei and from the negative prefix used with imperatives. Thus it is not a teacher, there is no teacher, and do not do that are different grammatical tasks in the source. A translation that recognizes only the negative meaning, without recognizing the task, can replace one kind of denial with another.
The Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka explanation gives Dia bukan guru for denying that someone is a teacher. Its ordinary pattern uses bukan with a noun or prepositional phrase and tidak with a verb or adjective. The short example Dia tidak malas denies the description lazy rather than denying a person’s occupational identity. A Divehi negative therefore needs a whole predicate interpretation before either Malay form is selected.
A correction can change the ordinary pattern
The same Malay authority describes bukan with verbal or adjectival material when there is a contrastive correction. Its example Dia bukan belajar, tetapi bermain contrasts studying with playing. This matters for a Divehi message correcting an earlier description of what someone is doing: the speaker may not merely deny an activity, but replace it with a different account.
Compare two original intentions: he is not studying now, and he is playing rather than studying. The first leaves his actual activity open; the second identifies it. A Malay translation which turns the first into a contrastive correction may imply information missing from the Divehi message. One which reduces the second to a bare denial loses the corrected activity that the speaker wanted to supply.
The distinction also applies to a negative answer containing Divehi nūn. If the preceding question asks whether a person is a teacher, expand the reply mentally as a denial of that identity. If the question concerns knowing something, do not force the answer into a teacher-style noun predicate merely because the same Divehi reply word appears. The missing material belongs to the preceding question, and that recovered material determines the target construction.
These comparisons explain why searching for one Malay equivalent of nūn is less useful than identifying the denied claim. First determine whether the source rejects an identity, an activity, or a description; then determine whether it adds a replacement. The Malay distinction between ordinary negation and explicit correction can preserve that intention without turning every Divehi negative into the same fixed formula.
Language references