Fijian to Irish: my hand and having something require different constructions
Recover the relation expressed by the Fijian suffix
Hong gives ligaqu as my hand and tinaqu as my mother. These Fijian examples attach the possessor directly to the noun. The suffix identifies a relationship but does not independently turn the phrase into a complete assertion of possession, location or availability. In Irish, first decide whether the Fijian passage needs a noun phrase such as my hand or a sentence saying that somebody has an item. The two tasks should not be collapsed.
The Irish dictionary on Teanglann identifies mo as a possessive adjective and notes that it causes lenition, with m’ written before a vowel or fh followed by a vowel. Its examples include mo bhéal, my mouth. This is an independently attested Irish body-part phrase, not a literal equivalent of ligaqu. It demonstrates that expressing a possessive relation in Irish can affect the following noun’s initial form rather than add a suffix in the Fijian manner.
A translator looking only for a separate Fijian word corresponding to mo could lose the possessor altogether. Conversely, mechanically retaining the unchanged dictionary form of an Irish noun after mo would ignore the construction documented by the Irish source. The relationship must survive while its grammatical expression changes: attachment at the end of the Fijian noun and mutation at the beginning of an Irish noun are not competing spellings of one shared pattern.
Having is wider than ownership
Teanglann also documents ag with the substantive verb in constructions describing property or other relationships. Its example Tá beirt mhac aige concerns having two sons, while other entries cover skills, duties and people staying with somebody. These uses show why the presence of a have-like meaning does not automatically imply legal ownership. A Fijian relationship involving a relative should not acquire a commercial or transferable-property interpretation merely because an English gloss uses possessive terminology.
The difference is useful when a message identifies a person’s relative and then says the relative is staying with them. The first relation and the present arrangement are not the same fact. An Irish possessive phrase can identify the relationship without asserting the temporary visit; an ag construction can participate in a fuller statement whose interpretation depends on its predicate and context. Choose the construction for the actual assertion instead of expanding every suffixed Fijian kin term into having somebody present.
Hong contrasts direct possession for relatives and body parts with separate Fijian patterns for other possessions, food and drink. Irish does not reproduce that entire classification by assigning mo only to one of those classes and ag to another. The directly attested Irish uses are broader. Preserve which person is connected to the relative or body part, then distinguish a named relationship from a statement of presence, possession or ability. That prevents a grammatical adjustment from adding a new situation to the Fijian account.
Language references