Dogri to Chinese: similar-sounding de forms do different grammatical work
Head agreement is not a rule for choosing 的
Sawhney describes Dogri genitive da, de and di as agreeing with the possessed head. Mandarin 的, pronounced de, can also connect a possessor to an item, but the similar sound does not make it the equivalent of one Dogri agreement form. A change in the Dogri head’s gender or number is not an instruction to change the Chinese particle into another vowel.
Oxford’s Chinese grammar illustrates 小王的书, Xiao Wang’s book, with the owner before 的 and the item after it. For an original Dogri message listing one person’s book and belongings, preserve both the owner and the different items. Do not try to reproduce the source’s agreement contrasts through invented forms of 的.
The comparison is useful precisely because part of the order can look familiar. A possession phrase may still put the owner before the item, yet its grammatical connection is organized differently. Recognizing the owner-first relationship does not justify transferring every Dogri ending into the target phrase.
A description with 的 need not name an owner
The Oxford resource also uses 的 with descriptive phrases and with a clause modifying a noun. Its example 小王买的书 refers to the book Xiao Wang bought. The person before the particle is involved in the description, but the relationship is buying, not simply ownership.
A Dogri sentence about the book Rani bought and one about Rani’s book need not identify the same relationship. A purchase does not by itself establish present ownership. If the Chinese output retains only Rani and the book while losing the buying predicate, it can replace the intended event-based description with a possession claim.
Sawhney’s Dogri examples show why the source roles deserve explicit attention: a person marked with ne in a past transfer is an actor, while gi marks the recipient. A clause describing who acquired or transferred an item must preserve the relevant role before it becomes a Chinese noun modifier. Proximity to a possession-like linker cannot decide that role.
An absent particle is not always an absent relationship
Oxford notes that 的 can be omitted in certain close relationship and associated-place expressions. Its examples include 我家, my home. Thus a Chinese translation of Dogri mera kar need not display one visible particle for the source possession to remain interpretable.
For an original Dogri note distinguishing my home from a teacher’s books, assess each target noun phrase according to its construction. A familiar home expression can omit the particle, while another phrase can show it. The difference is not evidence that the home has ceased to be associated with the speaker.
In this direction, distinguish possession, description and a conventional close association before looking for a written de. Dogri agreement helps locate the possessed head in the source. Chinese may connect a description with 的 or express a close relationship without it. The intended owner, item and any describing event provide the meaningful comparison, rather than the number of similar-sounding particles.
Language references