Dogri to Dari: distinguish an adjective’s agreement from a change in degree
An ending does not always mean more of a quality
Dogri adjective forms can change because the noun changes. Sawhney illustrates masculine and feminine forms of the adjective good and separate plural forms. Those differences belong to agreement. When a Dogri description becomes Dari, preserve whether the writer meant good, better or best independently of the source adjective’s inflection. An altered ending is not by itself evidence of comparison.
Entezar’s Kabuli Dari grammar illustrates khub, khubtar and khubtarin for good, better and best. Here the additional material changes degree. A Dogri plural description of good items must not become a claim that the items are better merely because its adjective looks morphologically more elaborate than a singular form. Conversely, an actual comparison must not be flattened into a positive description.
The two things being compared need their own places
The Dari grammar describes a comparative construction using az before the second noun phrase, with kada and the comparative adjective in its spoken examples. It separately illustrates equality with mesl-e or baraabar-e. Thus a source saying one item is better than another differs structurally and semantically from a source saying the two are equally good.
Dogri’s ability to vary constituent order makes identifying those participants especially important. Sawhney demonstrates scrambling while grammatical marking preserves relationships. A Dogri comparison cannot be rendered safely by treating the first two nouns encountered as the two sides of a fixed Dari pattern. Establish which item receives the description and which supplies the comparison standard before arranging the target clause.
For a product description, that distinction changes the claim a reader receives. A statement that the second product is cheaper must not become a statement that the first is cheaper. The comparative suffix alone cannot establish that relationship; the target construction must attach the standard to the intended item.
A quality attached to a noun differs from a complete statement
Entezar illustrates ketaab-e khub, a good book. This is a noun with a following adjective connected by izafa. Sawhney’s Dogri adjective examples place the modifier before the noun. Translating this kind of source phrase may therefore require reversing the modifier–noun sequence and supplying the Dari linking construction rather than carrying over a visible Dogri agreement ending.
Sawhney also shows Dogri predicative adjectives on either side of the copula, with an emphasis difference in the cited example. Such a complete description is not equivalent to an isolated modified noun. If the source says that a book is good, reducing it to the equivalent of good book removes its assertion; if it simply labels a good book, adding a full assertion changes its function.
Keep the spoken examples within their documented scope
The Dari examples here come from Entezar’s description of spoken Kabuli, not a claim that every written or regional Dari construction is identical. That matters when a Dogri phrase is intended for a formal document rather than conversation. Preserve its positive, comparative or superlative meaning first, then choose the construction appropriate to the target variety and setting. Grammatical agreement in the source, degree of comparison and phrase-versus-clause structure remain separate decisions throughout.
Language references