Lower Sorbian to Kannada: not wanting an action is different from forbidding it
A negative preference must not become a command
A Lower Sorbian message may say that the writer does not want to travel, or tell the recipient not to travel. Both concern an unwanted journey, but they assign the decision to different people. A Kannada translation must retain who has the preference and who is expected to act.
Zydenbos’s Kannada manual distinguishes infinitive constructions with bēḍa from constructions using a verbal noun. Its “allige hōgabēḍa” tells someone not to go there. A statement that the writer does not want to perform some work instead uses a verbal-noun construction in the examples.
For a Lower Sorbian cancellation, turning personal unwillingness into a prohibition can make the writer sound as though they control another person’s plans. Conversely, translating a direct instruction as a private preference may leave the listener unaware that any action is requested.
Identify the person whose wish is being expressed
The manual also discusses a sentence about someone coming here whose unwantedness is ambiguous without context. The person coming need not be the person who objects to the visit. Explicitly identifying the experiencer can clarify who does not want the arrival.
That distinction is useful in a Lower Sorbian exchange among a host, a visitor and an organizer. The organizer may report that the host does not want a visit; the visitor may personally decline; or the organizer may prohibit the arrangement. These are three different messages, even though the same prospective arrival is mentioned.
Keep the source’s attribution intact. If the writer reports another person’s preference, the target should not silently make that preference the writer’s own. A subsequent explanation of the arrangement may depend on whether the obstacle is the host’s decision or the visitor’s willingness.
Likewise, preserve uncertainty when the source does not resolve it. An ambiguous short message should not acquire a confidently assigned objector merely because a particular target construction makes that interpretation easy to express.
Respectful address and actual participant counts remain separate
Stone’s Lower Sorbian account notes that wy can address one person or two respectfully. A source instruction using that form therefore needs contextual interpretation before selecting a Kannada audience pattern. A respectful-looking plural does not independently establish a crowd of recipients.
The Kannada manual mentions a polite prohibitory variant, while noting that some speakers consider it old-fashioned. This is a documented register observation, not a recommendation to attach the form to every courteous Lower Sorbian instruction. The relationship and intended style still matter.
Do not solve the politeness question by changing the instruction itself. A courteous prohibition remains a request that the listener refrain from an action; a polite statement of personal preference remains information about the speaker’s wishes. Tone and participant roles must both survive.
Before accepting the translation, ask who would do the travelling, who objects, and whether the recipient is being instructed at all. Then check how many people are addressed. Those concrete questions help preserve the Lower Sorbian decision without mistaking a negative wish for a ban or converting respectful singular address into an unintended group command.
Language references