Spanish to Sesotho sa Leboa: the person described may act, while the object described does not
A descriptive clause can identify different participants
A Spanish relative clause can identify a person through an action they perform or identify an object through an action somebody else performs on it. The RAE’s grammatical glossary recognizes relative clauses as a distinct construction. When translating into Sesotho sa Leboa, first identify the noun being described and its role inside that description. A familiar equivalent of that or who cannot settle both questions.
The University of Pretoria grammar fragment distinguishes direct and indirect relatives in its analysis. Its direct example describes a chief who reigns. Its indirect example describes a motorbike that a man likes. In the second, the motorbike is the described object, while the man is the participant doing the liking.
For an original Spanish collection instruction, distinguish the colleague who delivered a parcel from the parcel that the colleague delivered. The vocabulary overlaps, but the two descriptions select different things. A translation that follows the right delivery event while selecting the wrong noun would direct the recipient toward the wrong task.
Agreement can point to different nouns inside one description
In the motorbike example, the grammar’s introductory demonstrative concord follows the class of the described motorbike, while the subject concord relates to the man inside the clause. The analysis also identifies object agreement associated with the motorbike. These markers do not all point to whichever noun happens to be closest.
This is a useful warning for Spanish descriptions containing both a person and an item. Imagine a note identifying a bicycle that an assistant repairs. The bicycle remains the object selected by the description; the assistant remains the person carrying out the repair. A target sequence with different agreement markers need not introduce additional people or additional bicycles.
Conversely, making every marker agree with the bicycle would not preserve the assistant’s role merely because the entire phrase concerns that bicycle. Keep the head noun and the embedded subject separate during review. The target construction must connect each grammatical piece to the appropriate participant, rather than repeat one class pattern throughout.
Keep the description separate from the main instruction
An identifying description can be followed by a new instruction about its referent. In an original Spanish equipment message, the item repaired yesterday may be the one to send today. Repair and dispatch are separate events. Yesterday selects the relevant item through its repair history, while today schedules the requested action.
If the translation attaches yesterday to dispatch, it changes the schedule. If it makes the repairer the object to be sent, it changes the referent. Both errors can survive a check that merely looks for the words repair, send and the two time expressions. Review the relationships among them instead.
The Pretoria source also records variation in relative constructions and notes that its implemented grammar excludes a corpus pattern pending closer investigation. Its analysis should therefore not be treated as proof that every naturally occurring sentence follows one rigid template. The useful evidence here is the documented distinction between the described noun and another participant within the clause.
Before accepting this translation, answer three questions: which person or item is selected, what event identifies it and what the main message says to do. Keeping those answers stable preserves the practical instruction while allowing Sesotho sa Leboa to express agreement through its own grammatical structure.
Language references