Dogri to Samoan: possession depends on the relationship, not the head’s gender
Dogri agreement leaves another target decision open
Sawhney describes Dogri genitive da, de and di as agreeing with the possessed head. Their differences can therefore reflect the item’s gender, number or case. Samoan a and o genitives distinguish another dimension: the relationship between the possessor and the possession. A feminine Dogri head cannot automatically select either Samoan form.
Hopperdietzel and Alexiadou describe o-marked relationships including body parts and part–whole connections, alongside a-marked nonpermanent or initiated possessions. Their account also notes that some nouns allow either construction depending on the relationship intended. The choice cannot be reduced to one universal list of objects that can or cannot be physically transferred.
For a Dogri description of a person’s hand and a tool in their temporary possession, the same person can be the possessor in both phrases. That does not require the same Samoan possessive construction. Conversely, changing the Dogri possessive ending because the head noun changes does not prove a change in the nature of possession.
An event participant is not always an ordinary owner
The Samoan study distinguishes possessive noun phrases from nouns built around an event. Its nominalization analysis finds different marking for participants according to the underlying predicate and participant type. A person associated with an event noun should consequently not be interpreted as a straightforward owner merely because the target uses genitive-looking material.
An original Dogri message about a colleague’s departure concerns who departs, while one about the colleague’s bag concerns an item associated with that person. Both can contain a source possession-like connection, but the target must preserve the event participant in the first and the object relationship in the second.
This becomes particularly important if the source also names somebody affected by an action. A Dogri noun phrase about one person’s treatment of another must not exchange the person acting with the person affected. Samoan nominalization patterns require identifying those roles before choosing how their participants are expressed. The visible Dogri genitive form alone does not provide that whole analysis.
A marked actor is a separate construction again
The same article describes the Samoan transitive actor marker e before its noun phrase. Sawhney’s Dogri past transfer example places ne after the actor and gi after the recipient. Even where both descriptions use the term ergative, their ordering and surrounding constructions are language-specific.
For a Dogri account of giving an item, distinguish the giver, recipient and possessor of the item. One person may fill two of those roles, but the roles are not identical. A Samoan marker identifying the actor must not be chosen as if it expressed who owns the gift.
The helpful comparison is therefore between functions, not short marker shapes. Dogri head agreement supplies evidence inside its possessive phrase; Samoan genitive choice classifies a relationship; an event noun introduces participant questions; and an actor construction identifies who acts. A translation of a family possession or transfer message needs the relevant distinction at each point rather than one fixed replacement for every Dogri genitive.
Language references