Fijian to Bodo: possession classes and counting units answer different questions
Fish for somebody to eat is not a number of fish
Hong’s Fijian example kequ ika presents fish as food associated with the speaker. The possessive relationship differs from his noqu ika example, where fish is treated as merchandise. This is information about the possessor’s relationship to the item, not a numeral specifying how many fish there are. In Bodo, preserving a food relationship and selecting an appropriate expression of quantity are therefore separate parts of translating the same passage.
Basumatary’s study of Bodo numeral classifiers gives na ma-nɯi mɯn-bai as an example about obtaining two fish. Here ma accompanies the numeral nɯi, two, and the noun na identifies fish. This independently attested Bodo sentence is not a translation of kequ ika: it reports an event and supplies a count that the short Fijian possessive phrase has not supplied. Its value is to show where quantity is expressed in the target construction.
The resemblance between the labels possessive classification and numeral classification can be misleading. A Fijian food possessive does not select the Bodo number two, and the Bodo classifier used with fish does not independently identify whose meal those fish will become. A translation that preserves only the target counting pattern may sound specific while omitting the Fijian allocation of food. One that supplies an arbitrary count would introduce a different error.
Distinguish the item from a portion or a serving
The Fijian lessons by Schütz and Komaitai show why the intended relationship deserves attention: taro can be treated as food or as a marketable product, with a corresponding possessive difference. That change does not itself measure the taro or describe a portion size. If a Bodo translation needs to describe an allocated amount, the amount must come from a numeral, measure or other information in the Fijian passage, rather than being invented from the food classification.
Bodo also distinguishes different counting units. Basumatary illustrates khɔbɔ-se ɯŋkham as a mouthful of rice and describes phan as a classifier for parts or divisions. Counting a fish, allocating a share and measuring a mouthful are not equivalent operations. In a Fijian account of distributing food, determine whether the quantity refers to whole items, divisions or amounts consumed before choosing a Bodo classifier. The fact that the item is intended to be eaten cannot settle that choice.
This matters when a source first identifies somebody’s food and later describes dividing it. The possessive relationship can remain the same while the unit changes from an item to a share. Bodo should retain that distinction rather than suggest that every part is a separate whole fish or that an allocated meal has already been eaten. Keep entitlement, quantity and consumption separate: the two languages provide different grammatical resources for connecting those pieces of the account.
Language references