Greek to Sinhala: the person experiencing an event may take a different case
Greek subject case is not a target case instruction
Modern Greek normally marks nominal subjects with the nominative. A Greek sentence about someone hearing or understanding therefore presents a familiar grammatical subject even when the person does not deliberately cause an event. Spoken Sinhala can organize such clauses differently. Carmen Jany’s study documents dative-marked experiencers with sensation and cognition predicates, so retaining the Greek participant does not require retaining the Greek case.
The study’s maṭə sindu æhe-nəwa reports hearing music, with the experiencer marked dative. Its laməya-ṭə kataawə teere-nəwa describes a child understanding a story, likewise with a dative participant. The dative in these examples does not introduce a separate recipient to whom the music or story is being delivered. It marks the person experiencing the hearing or understanding.
A changed case does not mean a changed person
For a Greek message about a child understanding instructions, the central relationship is between that child and the content understood. A target case change can express this same relationship through Sinhala grammar. Interpreting the target dative as an added indirect object would manufacture a second participant and obscure who actually understands. Conversely, preserving a Greek-style nominative mechanically can miss the lexical construction selected by the target predicate.
Greek case remains valuable for interpreting the original sentence, particularly when word order changes. Its direct and indirect objects are not identified only by their position. But these source distinctions establish who participates in the source event; they do not dictate a one-to-one set of Sinhala endings. The target construction must be chosen after the event and its roles have been understood.
Voice and control belong to different grammatical comparisons
Greek nonactive verb morphology is not restricted to a straightforward passive meaning. The Centre for the Greek Language discusses passive, reflexive, reciprocal and other uses, including verbs whose ordinary meaning does not introduce an external agent. Sinhala involitive forms likewise cannot be assigned solely from a broad passive-looking source category. The two systems classify overlapping kinds of event without dividing them identically.
Jany links the illustrated Sinhala patterns with volition, control, animacy and lexical properties, while explicitly noting exceptions. A report about understanding should not become a statement that somebody forced the person to understand. A report about hearing also need not assert deliberate listening. Preserve what the Greek text actually says about the experience, rather than adding causation or intention to explain an unfamiliar target case.
The findings concern spoken constructions with particular predicates
The cited study distinguishes spoken Sinhala and records variation between its consultant’s forms and earlier descriptions. Its account is therefore useful evidence for the demonstrated constructions, not a universal rule that every Greek experiencer must receive one Sinhala ending. The exact predicate and the meaning of the clause remain important.
For this direction, separate three questions: who experiences the event, whether the source states deliberate control, and how the selected Sinhala predicate marks that participant. Greek nominative subjects and Sinhala dative experiencers can refer to the same person doing the same experiencing. Preserving that continuity matters more than making the case labels look alike.
Language references