Dogri to Mongolian: grammatical gender does not choose a Cyrillic case ending
Two different meanings of gender
Dogri distinguishes masculine and feminine nouns, and Sawhney describes agreement involving adjectives and possessive forms. Mongolian teaching materials also use masculine and feminine labels when explaining suffixes, but there they concern vowel patterns. A feminine Dogri noun is not therefore a feminine Mongolian word. Translating the noun requires establishing the target stem before selecting its ending.
The Tokyo University of Foreign Studies lesson illustrates гар becoming гарыг and гэр becoming гэрийг. These are accusative forms of words meaning hand and house. The different vowels belong to Mongolian suffix selection. They cannot be predicted from the gender of the corresponding Dogri noun or from whether the person associated with the object is male or female.
For a Dogri instruction involving a house, do not carry a feminine or masculine adjective ending into the Mongolian noun merely to preserve visible agreement. Preserve which house is meant and its role in the instruction. The target word’s own sound pattern determines the appropriate suffix shape once the construction requires that suffix.
The object decision precedes the spelling decision
The same lesson distinguishes accusative-marked objects from unmarked objects. It describes definite references, including demonstrative and personal references, as environments for the marked form, while a generic object can remain unmarked. A suffix chart consequently does not establish that every object needs a suffix.
Sawhney’s Dogri example of Ram giving Rani a book marks the actor with ne and the recipient with gi. Before constructing Mongolian, distinguish those participants from the thing transferred. A marker on a Dogri person is not evidence that the person is the direct object, and the final verb’s agreement does not tell you which Mongolian noun should receive an accusative ending.
An original contrast between requesting any available book and requesting the particular book already discussed adds a further decision. The participants and transfer action can stay the same while the object’s reference changes. Mongolian object marking should follow that target interpretation, rather than become an automatic substitution for whichever Dogri postposition happens to be most visible.
An ending can expose a different stem shape
The Tokyo lesson also gives мөнгө becoming мөнгийг, money in the accusative. The vowel inside the written noun changes when the ending is added. A reader should not conclude that the target now names a different kind of money solely because the dictionary form is not preserved letter for letter.
Dogri already offers a useful comparison: some names take an oblique shape before a postposition while others do not. The comparison is functional, not a shared spelling rule. Dogri name behavior cannot predict which Mongolian stem changes, just as Dogri grammatical gender cannot select the Mongolian suffix vowel.
In a payment instruction, these decisions remain separate: identify the recipient, identify the money being referred to, decide its grammatical role, and recognize the target stem inside its inflected form. Treating every altered ending as evidence about the recipient’s identity would confuse Mongolian noun morphology with the participant relationships expressed by the Dogri message.
Language references