Persian to Lingala: plural things need interpretation beyond a singular-looking verb
An inanimate Persian plural can occur with a singular verb
The Texas Persian lesson gives in miz hā bozorg ast for these tables are big. The tables are plural despite the singular copula. Lingala translation must therefore recover the number from the complete noun phrase, rather than let the source verb erase the plural group or turn it into one table.
The same lesson documents exceptions and variation, so the example should not become an absolute claim about every Persian inanimate subject. It demonstrates a specific interpretive problem: noun number and the visible verb form do not always give matching cues. The target needs the things actually referred to, not a mechanically singular reconstruction.
Lingala varieties distribute agreement differently
Eyamba Bokamba’s polylectal study distinguishes morphological noun class from syntactic agreement. It contrasts more extensive class agreement in Mankandza and Literary Lingala with reduced or generalized patterns in Spoken and Kinshasa Lingala. A Persian translation should consequently not be judged solely by whether every target agreement prefix resembles a single literary paradigm.
The study illustrates li-loba y-ango e-sili against literary li-loba li-ango li-sili, that matter has finished. The noun retains its class identity while the agreement pattern differs across the varieties described. This warns against treating each changed agreement element as proof that the thing being discussed has changed.
The directional issue is different from Persian singular agreement with plural inanimates. One cannot copy that Persian pattern into Lingala and call the result a spoken variety. The target’s actual variety supplies its own agreement possibilities; the source’s noun phrase still supplies the intended number and referent.
Human pronouns provide a separate control
Bokamba also records Yé a-kamat-áki, he or she took, and Bangó ba-kamat-áki, they took, within a personal-pronoun agreement paradigm shared by the varieties being compared there. Human reference therefore provides a useful check distinct from the inanimate agreement variation. Several people should not become one merely because another source example used a singular verb.
Persian u likewise can refer to either he or she, while ānhā identifies they in the Texas pronoun lesson. Keeping those reference distinctions intact matters in an account where people move or arrange several objects. The number of people acting and the number of objects being described are separate facts. One person can arrange several tables; several people can equally be discussing a single remaining table.
For this pair, start by identifying the Persian subject’s referent and number, especially where inanimate plural agreement is involved. Then express that subject using a coherent Lingala variety and its construction, rather than mixing literary class agreement with unrelated generalized forms. Surface similarity between prefixes or source endings should not replace the actual count of people or things in the account.
Language references