Estonian to Literary Chinese: on can identify someone, describe them or locate them
The same Estonian form serves different relationships
Ta on õpetaja identifies somebody as a teacher. Ta on lahke describes somebody as kind. Ta on kodus places somebody at home. Estonian on appears in all three, but the sentences do not assert the same kind of relationship. A Literary Chinese translation should not select one character for on and insert it mechanically into each sentence.
The Estonian Language Institute’s olema entry distinguishes uses including being somewhere, possessing something and auxiliary constructions. This breadth explains why recognition of the Estonian verb is only the beginning. The noun, adjective, location or additional verb following it determines what the target needs to express.
Naming a kind person differs from saying someone is kind
Rouzer’s primer distinguishes a nominal sentence from adjectival predication in Literary Chinese. Its examples compare 魯公仁人也, identifying the Duke of Lu as a kind person, with 魯公仁, describing him as kind. The difference is grammatical as well as stylistic: the first contains a noun expression, while the second predicates a quality.
For Estonian Ta on lahke inimene, the expression lahke inimene identifies the person through a noun phrase. For Ta on lahke, the adjective alone supplies the description. A Literary Chinese rendering may express these differently even though Estonian uses on in both. Preserving the distinction does not require adding a historical title or making the unnamed person into a duke.
Rouzer discusses nominal sentences commonly ending in 也 and notes that the particle can sometimes be absent. This is a constructional explanation, not a rule that every Estonian sentence containing on must end with that character. An account of a teacher’s occupation still differs from a report of that teacher’s location or current activity.
Place and possession need their own interpretation
Õpetaja on kodus concerns where the teacher is, not what kind of person the teacher is. Rouzer lists 在 with a locational meaning. In contrast, Kodus on õpetaja can introduce the presence of a teacher at home, depending on the surrounding account. A target rendering should preserve whether the teacher is already identified or is being introduced as present.
Mul on raamat concerns a book associated with the speaker through possession. Rouzer describes 有 in both possession and existence uses. The Estonian construction therefore does not require a nominal identity sentence equating the speaker with a book. The holder, the item held and any specified location remain separate relationships even though Estonian uses the same basic verb.
Finally, Ta on lugenud includes on as part of a completed-action construction about reading. Rendering only an identity or location would discard the reading event. For this pair, distinguish the actual Estonian predicate: a profession, a quality, a location, possession or an action built with an auxiliary. Rouzer’s early Literary Chinese patterns provide relevant contrasts without implying that every period and genre uses one unchanging equivalent of Estonian olema.
Language references