Estonian to Pashto: a past writing verb can agree with the letter rather than the writer
Changing the number of letters does not change the Estonian writer
Kirjutasin kirja describes the speaker writing a letter. Kirjutasin kirjad describes the speaker writing the letters. In these original Estonian examples, the writer remains first-person singular while the written object changes number. A Pashto translation must preserve that object distinction even when its past-tense verb agreement behaves differently from Estonian.
The Estonian Language Institute describes kirjutama as producing letters or numbers on a surface and creating text. The forms used in a message about correspondence therefore report a writing event, not automatically sending or receiving the result. A translation should preserve what was written without adding delivery merely because the object is a letter.
Past transitive agreement follows the object in Pashto
Universal Dependencies’ Pashto description explains that active transitive predicates use direct-case subjects in non-past tenses but oblique-case subjects in past tenses. Their objects generally remain direct-case forms. Crucially, it describes agreement with the subject in non-past clauses and with the object in past clauses. The target’s case pattern cannot be inferred by copying the apparent Estonian subject ending.
For the first-person writing report, an object-controlled past form does not mean that the letter becomes the author. The writer is still the person producing it. Grammatical agreement and the person who performs an action are different relationships, and confusing them can reverse the meaning of a short status update.
The description also identifies gender agreement in third-person past forms. Thus a target form can reflect properties of the written object rather than identify the speaker as male or female. An Estonian first-person past ending does not supply the object’s Pashto grammatical gender; that follows from the appropriate target noun and construction.
Writing now, writing earlier and an unspecified writer need separate treatment
Compare Kirjutan kirja with Kirjutasin kirja. The first presents writing in a non-past form; the second reports it in the past. For an active transitive Pashto rendering, this temporal change affects more than a time word. It can change the case of the actor and which participant controls the verbal agreement.
An Estonian account may instead use an impersonal writing form, leaving the writer unspecified. That should not be expanded into a claim that a particular previously mentioned person authored the letter. The dictionary’s example asking how a word is written illustrates writing described without identifying a particular writer. The target should retain that lack of attribution where it matters.
For correspondence updates, keep the number of letters, the time of writing and the attribution of authorship distinct. One person writing several letters remains one writer; a past object-agreeing verb does not change that fact. Applying the documented Pashto argument pattern to the actual clause preserves the Estonian event while allowing its grammatical organization to change.
Language references