Persian to Turkish: the link after book is not always a possessive relationship
Ezāfe connects more than owners to belongings
The Texas Persian lesson gives ketāb-e man, my book, alongside film-e xub, a good film. Both contain the ezāfe link after the head noun, but the dependent material does different work. One identifies a possessor and the other describes a quality. A Turkish translation must distinguish those relationships before deciding which noun construction to use.
The same lesson includes naming expressions such as šahr-e tehrān, the city of Tehran. That link does not say that Tehran owns a separate city. Consequently, treating every Persian -e as a Turkish possessive or genitive instruction could distort ordinary descriptive and naming phrases as well as genuine possession.
Turkish possession reorganizes the phrase
The Turkish Universal Dependencies case documentation illustrates Ali’nin kitabı, Ali’s book. The possessor precedes the book, and the example combines a genitive possessor with a possessed-noun form. This differs from the head-first Persian book-plus-possessor arrangement. Moving the Persian linking sound alone cannot reproduce that target relationship.
In a Persian instruction distinguishing the speaker’s book from someone else’s, the owner must remain attached to the same item after this reorganization. A fluent sequence of Turkish nouns can still identify the wrong book if their relationship has been reversed. The change in order is grammatical reconstruction, not a change in whose property is being discussed.
A descriptive Persian dependent should not automatically receive the same treatment. The good-film example assigns a property to the film; it does not introduce an owner named Good. The source construction’s shared surface link therefore requires a meaning decision before the target morphology can be selected.
A genitive form can also serve a nonownership function
The Turkish documentation notes that genitive marking also occurs with particular postpositions and with subjects of subordinate clauses. Its Kitabı senin için aldım example means that the speaker bought the book for the addressee. Senin participates in the for-you expression; its genitive form does not alone assert that the addressee already owns the book.
That distinction matters beside the Persian possessive phrase. A book belonging to someone and a book bought for someone can be different descriptions, even if the same person appears in both. Intended beneficiary does not necessarily establish current ownership: the intended gift may remain undelivered. Translating either relationship as the other can alter who is entitled to receive or retain the item.
For this direction, classify the Persian link as possession, description or naming in its particular phrase. Then rebuild the Turkish noun relationship rather than substitute a suffix for ezāfe. Where Turkish uses a genitive form outside possession, interpret its surrounding construction as well. This preserves the difference between whose book it is, what the book is like and who benefits from buying it.
Language references