Persian to traditional Mongolian: the writer inside a relative clause is not necessarily an owner
A Persian letter can be identified by who wrote it
The Texas object-marker lesson illustrates nāme-yi ke diruz neveštam, the letter which I wrote yesterday, within questions about sending or locating that letter. The addressee can be the sender while the speaker remains the earlier writer. The speaker is the writer inside the identifying clause. This does not independently assert that the letter belongs to the speaker, nor that the speaker is its intended recipient.
A traditional-script Mongolian translation should preserve that event-based identification. In correspondence containing several letters, the one written yesterday is different from every letter currently owned by the speaker. Replacing the relative clause with a bare ownership expression could select the wrong document even if the same person remains mentioned.
Mongolian can mark a modifier-clause actor with genitive form
The Tokyo University of Foreign Studies lesson illustrates a noun-modifying clause with миний in the expression meaning the person whom I met yesterday. This genitive-form actor participates in the meeting event inside the modifier. Reading it as simple possession of the person would misunderstand the construction’s grammatical relationship.
The directional consequence for the Persian letter example is that a Mongolian genitive inside a modifying clause can identify the writer rather than establish an owner. The lexical event and the head noun jointly determine the role. Do not delete the writing event merely because a source or target word has a form associated with possession elsewhere.
The lesson also discusses exceptions and variation in modifier-clause subject marking, including indefinite actors. Its generalization should therefore not become an instruction to change every subject mechanically into genitive form. The useful point is that target case form must be read within the noun-modifying construction, rather than through an isolated dictionary gloss.
Temporal identification must survive the script choice
The Mongolian lesson distinguishes forms relating a modifying event to the main clause’s time. The Persian yesterday specifies when the writing occurred. A target modifier should preserve that time relationship rather than make the letter sound unwritten, scheduled for writing later, or habitually written every day.
Traditional Mongolian spelling is a further task after establishing the relationship. Unicode’s Mongolian description explains that traditional and Cyrillic orthographies do not map one-to-one. The Cyrillic grammar examples used to explain the construction here therefore should not be copied into a traditional-script result as though choosing the script were merely a font change.
For this pair, keep the letter as the head being identified, the speaker as the writer in the modifying event, and yesterday as that event’s time. Traditional spelling must express the resulting Mongolian phrase without turning its grammatical genitive into an ownership claim. A clear identifying clause is more valuable than a short possessive phrase that points to a different letter.
Language references