Divehi to Tamil: a destination, a purpose, and a special effort are different relationships
Do not translate every to or for as the same instruction
A Divehi movement sentence can say where someone goes and what they intend to do there. Tamil can additionally distinguish an ordinary purpose relationship from a more explicitly emphasized purpose in the usage described by Schiffman. These meanings should be kept separate before choosing a target expression glossed as to or for.
Fritz’s standard-language example of leaving a house for the market combines a destination with an infinitive of going. Elsewhere her Addu example combines going home with an eating purpose, and she identifies the case-marked home expression separately from the infinitive for eating. A place and an intended activity can therefore occur together without being interchangeable complements.
Schiffman compares Tamil idukku naan vandirukkeen with idukkaaka naan vandirukkeen. Both concern coming to do something, but his approximate distinction gives the latter an especially-directed interpretation. The extended dative with aaka is not presented merely as an alternative spelling that always carries exactly the same force.
Added emphasis can change the reason for a visit
Imagine a Divehi message explaining that someone came home to eat. The home is a destination; eating is a purpose. A Tamil translation that treats eating as a physical destination would misrepresent the activity. One that suppresses the purpose would instead leave only a journey home, losing the reason the source explicitly supplies.
Now consider an original distinction between I came to collect the document and I came especially to collect the document. The second makes the document collection more central to the visit. If the Divehi passage merely states the purpose without that additional emphasis, the translator should not add it just because an extended Tamil form looks like a fuller equivalent of for.
Schiffman also compares enakku and enakkaaka in a request about doing something for the speaker. His account treats the difference approximately as effort versus special effort. Thus a person benefiting from the action and the degree to which the request singles out that benefit should not be collapsed. A routine Divehi request can sound more pointed if the target introduces a special-effort reading that the source never required.
The same distinction helps with an explanation after a visit. A source statement of purpose does not guarantee that the intended task succeeded. Coming to collect a document is compatible with finding the office closed. A Tamil version must preserve the purpose relationship without converting it into a completed collection simply to make the sentence more explicit.
These examples concern the spoken usage discussed by Schiffman, who notes that the choice between the dative and its extension is not always transparently explained in actual use. The useful comparison is therefore a set of separate questions: where did the person go, what did they intend to do, who benefited, and was special emphasis stated? The Divehi source determines those meanings; the Tamil construction should express them without adding an extra claim about effort or success.
Language references