Dogri to Kyrgyz: a bare object is not necessarily a missing participant
The target can distinguish objects through case marking
Dogri uses postpositions and inflected forms to express argument relationships. Sawhney’s transfer example identifies a recipient with gi alongside a book object. Kyrgyz Universal Dependencies describes an accusative suffix typically marking a definite direct object, while indefinite direct objects can remain bare. A translator should therefore not add an accusative ending to every target noun simply because it is the thing affected by the Dogri action.
In an original Dogri account about reading a book, distinguish a previously identified book from an unspecified book introduced for the first time. The Kyrgyz wording may reflect that difference in its object construction. A bare target form does not by itself turn the book into the reader or mean that the object was forgotten. Its relationship to the verb and its interpretation need to be considered together.
A recipient and a destination can both use dative
The Kyrgyz description gives dative examples for travel towards a city and for giving a book to a named person. This category therefore covers more than the recipient relation in the cited Dogri transfer. Translating a Dogri phrase about going to someone’s home is not the same operation as translating a phrase about handing that person a book, even if the target uses a related case category.
For example, a Dogri message can first establish that the speaker will go to a village and then ask a resident to receive a parcel. The destination belongs to the travel event; the recipient belongs to the transfer. Keep those dependencies separate. A dative target noun should not automatically be interpreted as receiving an unstated object, and a personal recipient should not be converted into a place merely because a travel example supplied the familiar suffix.
Genitive marking also has structural uses
The Kyrgyz resource notes genitive with possessive relationships, with some postpositions and with subjects of subordinate clauses. Consequently, not every genitive noun encountered in a target sentence names an owner. Dogri genitive agreement with a head noun and Kyrgyz case selection cannot be reduced to one shared of-meaning.
This matters when a Dogri sentence combines a person’s possession with a report about what that person does. The owner in the noun phrase and the subject of an embedded proposition may be the same person, but they are separate grammatical links. Preserve both rather than treating each target genitive as another owned object. Likewise, the absence of a separately written Dogri postposition counterpart is not proof that Kyrgyz lost the relation: a suffix may carry it. Reconstruct direct object, recipient, destination and possession from the full source, then apply the target construction’s case requirements. The target endings express those relations within Kyrgyz, not a transcription of the Dogri postpositions.
Language references