Divehi to Turkmen: ownership can be marked on both sides of the relationship
An owner before a noun does not complete the target phrase
Divehi commonly places a genitive possessor before the noun it modifies. Turkmen can likewise put an owner before the possessed item, which makes the two noun phrases appear structurally familiar. The important difference is that a Turkmen possessive construction can also mark the possessed noun itself. Keeping the source order while omitting the target possessive ending may therefore preserve only part of the relationship.
The Peace Corps manual illustrates my father’s house through a structure glossed father-my-of followed by house-his. The final possessive marking on house does not introduce a second male owner unrelated to the father. It participates in the target construction. A translator should not remove it on the assumption that the owner has already been mentioned once and any additional ownership marking is redundant.
A source genitive can describe a property instead
Divehi genitives do more than connect an ordinary owner with a belonging. The grammar records descriptive constructions involving colour and measurement, including a genitive phrase specifying an object’s size. Interpreting every such source phrase as somebody’s possession can therefore distort descriptions before the target noun is even chosen. Work out whether the relation concerns an owner, a property or a spatial expression, rather than assigning the same Turkmen possessive pattern to all source genitives.
The distinction matters when a source noun phrase contains several modifiers. A measurement belongs to the described object, but it need not designate a person who owns it. The target should keep the quantity attached to the right noun without manufacturing a possessor. Conversely, when the source really identifies someone’s house, treating the genitive as a loose descriptive adjective would lose the ownership relation. Similar ordering in the two languages does not eliminate this semantic decision.
Having something is a separate clause-level choice
Divehi can assert possession with existential or locational verbs, including an idiomatic hand-locative construction for alienable possessions. That construction does not necessarily put the item in someone’s physical hand. A financial statement can therefore require a Turkmen expression of having resources rather than a literal location phrase. This clause-level interpretation should be settled before building a smaller possessive noun phrase within it.
Turkmen also permits personal possessive suffixes directly on nouns, and the manual notes that an explicit possessive pronoun can accompany such a suffixed noun. Its example gloss my name-my expresses one ownership relationship, not two successive claims. In a Divehi-to-Turkmen translation, apparent extra target morphology may thus be grammatical, while a literal extra hand may be a semantic error. Identify whether the source asserts that something exists, that someone has it, or that a particular item belongs to them. Then preserve that interpretation through the target noun and clause constructions. The right result is determined by those relationships, not by making the number of ownership-looking pieces identical on the two sides.
Language references