Tibetan to Armenian: a respectful addressee is not necessarily a group
The formal written pronoun makes a social distinction
The Armenian documentation distinguishes informal դու from formal Դուք, noting that the latter is capitalised in writing and combines with second-person plural verbs even when it addresses one person. A Tibetan message to a respected individual should therefore retain that individual’s actual number rather than turn the recipient into a group.
The visible difference between դուք and Դուք is relevant to the documented distinction between an ordinary plural pronoun and formal singular address. Target capitalisation can contribute information that is not recoverable by counting people from the verb alone. Establish whether the Tibetan message addresses one person respectfully or several people before choosing the Armenian construction.
The person addressed is different from the knowledge holder
Zeisler’s account of Standard Spoken Tibetan centres the described epistemic system on the speaker in statements and the addressee in information-seeking questions. This perspective distinction should not be confused with Armenian formal address. A question can politely request information without implying that the speaker already possesses that knowledge.
In a Tibetan exchange asking a respected person about an arrangement, preserve both relations: respect toward the listener and the listener’s role as the expected information source. An Armenian formal pronoun does not itself express personal epistemic authority. Conversely, a source marker associated with authority does not establish that the target addressee must be formal or plural.
The addressee can own something without being the actor
Armenian documentation separates possessor features from the agreement features associated with the possessed noun. Its possessive example իմ means my. A Tibetan message may address one person respectfully while discussing the speaker’s belongings or a third person’s belongings. The respectful addressee does not thereby become the owner.
Garrett and Hill’s analysis of written Tibetan identifies case markers at the ends of noun phrases. Recovering those boundaries is useful before selecting Armenian possession and participant roles. A source phrase about an item belonging to somebody should not absorb a neighbouring form of address and turn that person into its owner.
A quoted polite exchange must keep its voices
Zeisler also discusses Tibetan quotation markers in relation to the perspective of an original speaker. When such a dialogue is translated into Armenian, the politeness of the quoted speaker’s address should remain attached to that quoted interaction. It should not silently change the narrator’s own audience or the ownership relation outside the quotation.
A Tibetan narrator can report that one person respectfully asked another about the narrator’s equipment. The Armenian version must distinguish the person asking, the formal recipient, the equipment owner and the person now reporting the exchange. This is why a single target pronoun replacement is insufficient: capitalisation, verb number and possession each express different relationships. Preserve the roles first, then construct the Armenian sentence that expresses them without adding extra participants.
Language references