Dogri to Manipuri: a property can carry aspect inside its own form
Dogri agreement and Manipuri derivation answer different questions
Sawhney distinguishes Dogri adjectives that change their endings from adjectives that remain unchanged. Its examples with changa and changi show how a property word can agree with the noun it describes. Manipuri presents a different issue: Singh’s morphological account describes adjectives and adverbs derived from verbal roots. A target property word may therefore contain grammatical information that is not a gender ending.
For a Dogri description of a good player, determine first who is being described and what quality is asserted. A changed target form should not be read automatically as the Manipuri counterpart of masculine versus feminine Dogri agreement. The relevant distinction may instead concern how the quality is presented over time.
This matters when the Dogri source compares two players of different genders. Their adjective endings can differ while the quality and its timing stay constant. The Manipuri result must preserve the people being compared, but it need not reproduce that source ending contrast through two different property roots. Agreement and lexical derivation should not be confused.
Still good is more than the same adjective plus an optional word
Singh contrasts shannaroydu phei, the player is good, with shannaroydu houjiksu phari, the player is still good. The examples connect the property expression with aspectual information. They demonstrate why checking that the target contains a recognizable equivalent of good is insufficient to establish that still survived.
An original Dogri report after a player’s recovery may mean that their ability continues, rather than simply praising their ability now. Losing continuity changes the report even if the main noun and positive evaluation remain. Read the target construction as a statement about the persistence of the quality, not merely as a noun with a descriptive label.
The paper also illustrates an always-good assertion separately from a past-good assertion. These should not be collapsed into one timeless dictionary description. In a Dogri comparison between earlier performance and continuing performance, a Manipuri change within the property construction can carry the distinction that the source expresses elsewhere.
A predicative description should remain an assertion
The Dogri description notes that a predicative adjective can appear on either side of the copula with a difference of emphasis. That flexibility does not make the adjective an independent noun. Before translating, distinguish a phrase identifying a good player from a sentence asserting that the player is good, still good or formerly good.
For example, a Dogri caption identifying the good player and a Dogri assessment of the player’s continuing ability can share descriptive vocabulary while performing different jobs. Manipuri morphology should realize the intended construction; it should not be assembled by assigning one target word to every source space.
The practical comparison is therefore between three kinds of information: Dogri agreement identifies how the property relates to its noun, Dogri copular phrasing locates the assertion and its emphasis, and the Manipuri property construction can integrate aspect. Keeping those functions separate makes it possible to notice a target that praises the right person but changes whether the praise describes a continuing state or an earlier one.
Language references