Dogri to Faroese: case endings and possession follow different rules
The Faroese noun alone may conceal its case
A Dogri noun in an oblique form signals a relationship with a following postposition. Faroese does not reproduce that arrangement through one universal oblique ending. Its grammatical forms distinguish nominative, accusative and dative, with older genitive forms restricted in contemporary use. The Faroese PAROLE documentation demonstrates kettu in both an accusative and a dative phrase. The identical noun spelling does not mean the two constructions perform the same grammatical function.
Its examples contrast eina kettu, a cat in an accusative construction, with einari kettu in a dative construction. The accompanying word reveals the distinction that kettu itself leaves ambiguous. For a Dogri statement about seeing someone versus meeting someone, selecting a familiar target noun is therefore only one part of the translation. The Faroese verb and the rest of its noun phrase determine the appropriate case pattern; a Dogri source ending does not decide it independently.
Gender information must be reassigned to the Faroese noun
Dogri’s masculine and feminine noun classes differ from the Faroese system, which also has a neuter category. Sawhney’s Dogri description shows agreement on declinable adjectives and on the genitive marker da. A source adjective ending therefore conveys grammatical information, but its particular gender is not an instruction to choose an identically classified Faroese noun. First establish the target expression, then apply the agreement required by that expression.
Some Dogri modifiers are indeclinable, while others change with gender, number and case. Sawhney illustrates this through masculine and feminine forms of the adjective meaning good. The absence of a visible change on one Dogri adjective should consequently not be treated as proof that its noun phrase has no agreement features. Conversely, Faroese may expose case information on an accompanying word where its noun is unchanged. Compare the complete phrases rather than assessing correctness by whether each source ending has gained a visibly different target ending.
A Dogri genitive does not demand an old Faroese genitive
Petersen’s Faroese overview describes possession commonly expressed with hjá and a dative possessor, illustrating bilurin hjá manninum for the man’s car. This is useful when a Dogri phrase places a genitive-marked owner before the thing owned. The translation can move the owner after the possessed noun and express the relationship with a preposition. That reordering preserves ownership instead of weakening it.
The same overview distinguishes possessive forms that inflect from those that remain unchanged. Mín, my, and the reflexive sín have agreement forms; hansara, his, and hennara, her, do not decline in the same way. Dogri’s inflected genitive forms therefore cannot supply a single transformation for all Faroese possessives. A passage mentioning someone’s own possession also requires identifying whether that owner is the relevant subject or another person. Preserve the actual owner across the changed construction, rather than choosing a target form simply because it resembles a familiar genitive paradigm.
Language references