Lower Sorbian to Tatar: if I come and I would see are different constructions
Conditional labels can hide two distinct meanings
Stone describes Lower Sorbian conditional by as invariable, illustrating ja by źełał and woni by źełałi. The person and number differences appear elsewhere while by stays the same. Translating a hypothetical statement into Tatar requires identifying the construction’s meaning rather than searching for a single suffix labelled conditional.
The Tatarstan Academy morphology account distinguishes a conditional form with -са or -сә from an analytical subjunctive construction. Its килсәм means if I come, while күрер идем is illustrated with a would-see interpretation. These are useful contrasting examples: stating a condition and describing what would happen are related functions, but not interchangeable parts of a sentence.
A source marker need not correspond to a target suffix
A Lower Sorbian hypothetical main statement containing by should not automatically receive the Tatar if-form just because both are discussed under conditional terminology. Doing so can turn an intended outcome into a condition awaiting an outcome. The complete relationship between the clauses must survive the translation.
For a message about a possible visit, determine whether the speaker is specifying the circumstances under which a visit happens or describing an action that would follow from those circumstances. The target may need different constructions in the two places. Keeping a familiar lexical verb while exchanging the clause’s grammatical function changes the practical commitment being made.
The auxiliary can carry person information
The Academy account describes Tatar analytical subjunctive forms in which the auxiliary receives person inflection. This differs from the Lower Sorbian invariable by, but does not mean that Lower Sorbian conditionals lack person information. Stone’s examples show different subjects and participial forms alongside the unchanged marker.
A translator therefore needs to redistribute the source information rather than decide that an unchanged marker has nothing personal to contribute. Identify the actor from the whole Lower Sorbian clause, then select the Tatar construction and its appropriate personal form. Copying only the content verb or only the first-person pronoun leaves part of the target predicate unresolved.
Number and hypothetical meaning remain separate decisions
Lower Sorbian distinguishes a dual from a larger plural in its personal system. Stone’s conditional examples include a second-person dual construction as well as singular and plural forms. The Tatar Academy’s personal paradigms distinguish singular and plural without a separate dual series. A Lower Sorbian hypothetical involving a pair therefore requires preserving the actual two-person reference through the target expression and context.
This number question does not determine whether the clause means if or would. A pair can be the actor in either kind of clause, just as one person can. First map the hypothetical relationship between condition and outcome; then retain the actor and the intended group size within each clause. For this direction, the decisive comparison is between functions and the places where person is expressed, rather than between similarly named grammatical categories. A target suffix that looks plausible in isolation can still place the correct people on the wrong side of the condition.
Language references