Fijian to Bhojpuri: respectful address need not mean a group
Read the addressee before counting them
Hong lists Fijian o drau, o dou and o ni among second-person subject forms, conventionally associated with two people, a small group and a larger group. He also explains that number forms can express respect when the intended addressee is one person. In a request translated into Bhojpuri, a form from this series must therefore be interpreted in its actual exchange. Turning respectful address into an instruction to several people could change who is expected to act.
The distinction is particularly important if a message addresses somebody and then refers to other people affected by their decision. The person being asked may be singular even when the source uses a form associated with plurality. The other participants are not automatically additional addressees. Bhojpuri wording should identify who receives the request separately from who benefits from, witnesses or carries out the wider arrangement described in the passage.
Thakur’s grammar describes three levels in Bhojpuri imperatives: non-honorific, mid-honorific and full honorific. The full-honorific form can end in -ĩ. His example dekʰĩ is a respectful command to look, while dekʰ occurs as a less respectful bare imperative. These independently attested forms illustrate a target-language choice that is not answered by replacing each Fijian pronoun with a Bhojpuri pronoun and leaving the rest of the request untouched.
Respect can survive even when the subject is omitted
In Thakur’s imperative examples, the addressee may be expressed overtly or left unspoken. Consequently, the absence of an explicit Bhojpuri word for you need not make the translation impersonal or disrespectful: the imperative ending can still convey the relevant level of address. Conversely, adding an honorific pronoun while choosing an incompatible imperative form would not necessarily preserve the relationship expressed by the Fijian request. The whole address construction needs to fit together.
Hong’s account also distinguishes Fijian subject forms from object forms, including kemudrau, kemudou and kemuni. An object form does not itself establish that the person it refers to is being commanded. In a message asking somebody to help a respected third participant, confusing the object of an action with the addressee could direct the instruction at the wrong person. Bhojpuri imperative grammar should follow the intended hearer, rather than whichever respectful-looking expression appears nearest the action word.
Thakur’s description is centered on Bhojpuri in Bara and Parsa, with wider variation discussed elsewhere in the grammar. It offers specific evidence for imperative choices, not a universal social ranking to impose on every exchange. Likewise, Hong’s Fijian illustrations should not be turned into a rigid equation between each number form and one Bhojpuri honorific level. Preserve the request’s intended recipient and degree of deference together; literal headcounts and a fixed pronoun substitution table cannot reliably accomplish that.
Language references