Lower Sorbian to Macedonian: counting people is not copying their noun endings
Two languages can count the same group differently
A Lower Sorbian numerical phrase can determine both the form of a noun and the agreement of its predicate. Stone describes two with dual forms, while three and four use plural forms. Larger quantities introduce another pattern: in nominative or accusative functions, numerals from five upward can accompany a genitive plural noun and singular neuter agreement. These are grammatical arrangements, not competing estimates of how many people arrived.
Macedonian translation must preserve the count without carrying over that entire arrangement. Friedman describes quantitative forms for many masculine nouns, illustrated by dva dena, two days, beside ordinary plurals of day. An ending associated with a numerical expression is therefore familiar in both languages, but a shared numeral does not establish that the noun forms have the same grammatical status.
A collective may be grammatically unlike its Lower Sorbian source
Friedman’s Macedonian collective lisje means leaves. In an illustrated sentence, the definite collective appears with plural agreement. This differs from assuming that a singular-looking noun always requires a singular predicate. It also differs from Lower Sorbian’s larger-number construction, where a plural meaning can accompany singular agreement for structural reasons.
A Lower Sorbian report about fallen leaves or gathered people may therefore require a new agreement decision after its target vocabulary is chosen. The translation cannot select a verb’s number merely by counting participants, nor by copying the source verb. It must ask whether Macedonian uses an ordinary plural, a morphological collective, or a singular noun denoting a group.
People as a group are not always a morphological collective
Friedman distinguishes morphological collectives from singular nouns whose meanings describe collective entities. His example javnosta znae, the public knows, has singular agreement. He also records variation and dialectal or colloquial plural agreement with certain other expressions. The useful point is that semantic plurality alone does not create one uniform Macedonian agreement rule.
For Lower Sorbian messages, this matters when replacing a precise number with a broader expression such as a group or the public. Such a rewrite does more than shorten the statement: it changes the target noun phrase that controls or influences agreement. If the original gives a headcount, retaining it avoids introducing an unnecessary collective expression with its own grammatical consequences.
A group of people can create a genuine target choice
Friedman discusses a group of journalists with either singular agreement reflecting the group noun or plural agreement influenced by the nearby journalists. His account treats this as a stylistic issue rather than presenting every plural option as a simple error. This makes the direction especially sensitive to translations that replace Lower Sorbian numerical phrases with target group nouns.
Identify the exact expression used in the source: a numeral, a quantity noun, or a collective description. Then assess the Macedonian expression actually selected, rather than applying the source’s agreement wholesale. A count of days, a collection of leaves and an organization described as the public may all concern more than one entity, yet their target grammar differs. The reliable translation preserves the intended quantity and type of grouping while allowing each language to express that information through its own noun and predicate forms.
Language references