Persian to Serbian in Cyrillic: self-reference and owning a book are different relationships
Xod does not always ask for a possessive expression
Elias Abdollahnejad’s Persian study illustrates Bahar introducing herself, with xod or xod-eš as the person introduced. The expression identifies the same person as actor and affected participant. A Serbian translation must preserve that reflexive event rather than convert it into a statement about something belonging to Bahar.
The Serbian teaching material introduces свој as an own-type possessive adjective. Its examples Ја читам своју књигу and Он чита своју књигу describe reading one’s own book. The book remains the thing read; the possessive relationship links it to the reader. This is not the same structure as introducing oneself.
For Persian into Serbian, a familiar English gloss such as self or own is therefore insufficient. First identify whether the source names the person affected by an action or identifies the owner of a separate item. A choice that preserves only the broad idea of personal involvement can change the actual object of the action.
The target possessive follows the possessed noun’s grammar
The Serbian lesson explains that forms of свој agree in gender and number with the noun modified, while case reflects the phrase’s grammatical function. Thus своју in the book examples does not become evidence that the owner is a woman. The two documented sentences use that same form with different readers.
Persian ezāfe illustrates a different arrangement of relationships: ketāb-e man identifies my book, and film-e xub connects a noun to a description. A Persian possessive link does not itself supply the agreement endings required by the Serbian noun phrase. The owner and the item need to remain distinct while that grammar is expressed.
If a Persian account names a man reading his own book and later a woman reading hers, a repeated target possessive form may be entirely compatible with those different owners. Changing it simply to reflect the owner’s sex can damage agreement with the book. The source relationship and target noun features answer different questions.
A longer Persian sentence can make reference less local
Abdollahnejad also discusses complex sentences in which xod-eš can refer beyond the nearest clause, contrasting that behavior with the simpler xod examples. The study treats these as questions of reference and emphatic usage. It does not justify assuming that every occurrence of the suffixed source form points automatically to the nearest person mentioned.
That warning matters when a Persian report quotes or summarizes somebody else’s statement about a possession. Identify whose item is intended before choosing an own-type target adjective. Otherwise a phrase can wrongly link the book to the subject of the target clause when the Persian account concerns another person.
The Cyrillic target setting changes the writing system used for Serbian, not these relationships. Preserve the distinction among acting on oneself, using one’s own item and discussing another person’s item. Then the target can express the intended reference without confusing the owner with the grammatical features of the possession.
Language references