Persian to Armenian: an object marker is not a definite article
Persian rā identifies a construction, not simply the word the
Persian را, rā, appears after certain direct-object phrases. A translation into Armenian should not treat it as a detachable definite article. The relationship between specificity and object marking is more complicated, and the target has its own ways of expressing grammatical role and definiteness. Determine which phrase is acted on before selecting the Armenian construction.
Persian Online contrasts mardi didam, seeing a man, with mardi rā didam, seeing a certain man. The latter remains an indefinite description despite the presence of rā. Thus an Armenian translation that automatically makes every rā-marked noun definite could change a specific but newly introduced person into a person already assumed to be identified.
The Armenian definite ending performs a different job
The Armenian Universal Dependencies definiteness page illustrates a postposed definite article attached to the noun, with ը or ն as its forms. It contrasts that with indefinite մի and with an articleless noun. These are target-language definiteness distinctions, not direct replacements for the Persian object marker.
A Persian message about buying the book and one about buying a certain book can both contain rā while requiring different reference interpretations. The Armenian phrase should reflect whether the item is already identified, introduced as a particular but unspecified item, or left open. Its final article cannot be selected solely because a source marker also follows the noun phrase.
A dative target form need not mean a recipient
The Eastern Armenian overview documents direct objects in nominative or dative forms and also describes other uses of the dative. This differs from assuming that a direct-object relation must always appear as a unique accusative-looking ending. A dative-shaped target phrase is not sufficient evidence that the translator has turned an affected person into a recipient.
Persian Online makes the complementary source distinction through Hasan’s mother: she is the direct object in a seeing example but the recipient in a teapot-returning example. Merely identifying the same specific person does not establish the same grammatical role. For Armenian, read the predicate and the roles it requires, rather than matching source and target case labels as if each label had one universal meaning.
One source marker can apply to several coordinated objects
The Persian lesson shows a group consisting of a book, notebook and pencil followed by one rā, with a student identified separately as recipient. The final marker applies to the coordinated object group. It does not mean that only the final pencil is involved in the transfer while the other nouns are detached topics.
In an Armenian handover message, preserve the complete list and keep its recipient separate. A target article or case choice needs to be assessed within the target phrase; copying the position of the single Persian marker would not establish how each Armenian noun is linked into the sentence. The source grouping tells you what is handed over.
For this direction, separate three questions: what is the object, how specifically it is identified and who receives it. Persian rā contributes to the source construction, while Armenian uses its own noun forms and articles. Keeping those questions distinct prevents a newly introduced person from becoming an already identified one or an item list from shrinking to its final member.
Language references