Lower Sorbian to Welsh: keep a relative description attached to the right person
The colloquial source can use a particle and a returning pronoun
Pankau explicitly distinguishes colloquial Lower Sorbian from its standardized written variety. His discussion notes colloquial ak or ako with resumptive pronouns where the written language has relative pronouns. A short repeated personal reference inside such a description must therefore be interpreted in its construction, rather than automatically counted as a second person.
The Welsh Foundation guide uses sy to join clauses expressing who is or which is. Its examples combine a known person with a statement that the person writes books, and a picture with a statement locating it on a wall. The target construction connects the description directly to the person or thing being identified.
For an original colloquial Lower Sorbian message about the neighbour who writes books, establish that the neighbour and any resumptive reference belong to one description. A Welsh result should not turn the internal personal reference into another neighbour or another writer. The source’s two reference expressions can identify one participant.
The description has a time reference of its own
The Foundation guide distinguishes sy from oedd and fydd when the intended description means who was or who will be. A relative description is therefore not a place to discard time merely because its main job is identifying a person.
An original Lower Sorbian reference to a friend who lived abroad differs from one to a friend who will live abroad. If the Welsh target identifies the correct friend but shifts the residence into the present, the relationship between the friend and the place has changed. Read the description’s temporal meaning independently of the surrounding main sentence.
This is especially useful when a present message recalls somebody’s earlier circumstances. The fact that the writer now knows the person does not make the person’s earlier residence current. Conversely, a planned future residence must not become an established biographical fact merely because the relative description follows a familiar personal noun.
A reported thought uses another linking construction
The same Welsh guide uses bod in present and imperfect clauses following meddwl, think. This differs from sy linking the kind of relative descriptions illustrated in the course. One English-looking idea of a connecting word cannot be used as a universal replacement for every Lower Sorbian subordinate connection.
For an original source message contrasting the colleague who is working with a belief that the colleague is working, distinguish identification from reporting a thought. The first helps select a colleague; the second attributes a proposition to somebody’s judgment. Confusing them can change what is asserted and what is only believed.
For this direction, identify the source clause’s job before constructing Welsh: does it describe a noun, locate that description in time, or report a thought? Pankau’s colloquial particle-and-resumption observation explains one source pattern, while the Foundation guide supplies distinct Welsh connections. Their value lies in preserving the same referent and claim, not in finding one target linker for every source particle.
Language references