Lower Sorbian to Gujarati: a marked person can still be the direct object
The sought person is not the traveller
Arkadiev’s Lower Sorbian comparison illustrates an accusative name inside a supine construction: the speaker will go to look for Lenka. Lenka is the person being sought, while the first-person movement verb identifies the traveller. A name’s visible case ending contributes to that distinction even though it occurs near another action.
For an original Gujarati translation of such a plan, keep the searcher and the sought person separate. Do not infer that the person nearest the search predicate must perform the search. The target can require its own person-marking construction rather than a direct imitation of the source accusative ending.
This distinction also prevents a purpose clause from becoming an accompaniment claim. Going to look for someone is not the same as going somewhere with that person. The Lower Sorbian case analysis identifies an object of searching, not a companion already participating in the journey.
Gujarati ne can mark a direct object rather than a recipient
Irimia’s Gujarati analysis describes differential object marking with -ne, a form also associated with the dative. Its examples include a person scolding another person, where the marked person is the direct object. The form’s dative-like appearance does not make that person an indirect recipient.
For an original Lower Sorbian account of looking for, calling or addressing a specific person, identify the target verb’s actual construction before interpreting -ne. A Gujarati marked personal object should not be reinterpreted as somebody for whom the action is performed. Role assignment belongs to the predicate and its argument structure.
Conversely, a source transfer to a recipient genuinely introduces another relationship. A target marker that can occur with a direct object elsewhere is not proof that every similarly marked phrase has that role. The useful comparison is between the source person’s function and the complete Gujarati construction, not between the labels accusative and dative in isolation.
Object agreement can survive the visible marker
Irimia’s documented Gujarati examples show agreement with differentially marked objects in relevant perfective constructions. She contrasts these with indirect objects, which do not trigger the same agreement. Thus an overt marker does not automatically block all object-related agreement in the target.
For an original Lower Sorbian report involving a female person affected by a male actor’s action, a Gujarati feminine predicate form may concern the affected person in the relevant construction. It should not be read as changing the actor to a woman. Establish the source actor and object before using the target agreement as a reference clue.
The guide does not extend every reported Gujarati pattern to all regional varieties or claim that all searched-for objects require identical marking. The exact-direction issue is how a source accusative participant becomes a target object whose marker and agreement can behave differently. Preserve the searcher, the person sought and the purpose relationship, then interpret Gujarati marking and agreement together. A correct name alone does not show that the target assigns that person the same role.
Language references