Tibetan to Bosnian: reconstruct the noun phrase before choosing case endings
The source case marker belongs to a phrase
Garrett and Hill’s study of a written Tibetan corpus identifies case markers at the ends of noun phrases. A marker following a sequence of words therefore helps establish the role of the whole phrase, not merely the final visible word. A Bosnian translation needs that phrase boundary before it can select target inflection.
The Bosnian MULTEXT-East specifications distinguish nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, locative and instrumental noun forms. Their example contrast čovjek and čovjeka illustrates why recognising a person’s dictionary form does not settle the form needed in a sentence. First establish who acts, who is affected and what relation the entire Tibetan noun phrase expresses.
A compound is not always an adjective phrase
The Tibetan corpus study distinguishes blon-chen, prime minister, from blon-po chen-po, great minister. Translating the compact compound as a free adjective phrase would change an office title into an evaluation of a minister’s qualities. Bosnian wording must preserve the lexical meaning rather than assume that a component meaning big or great always functions as an ordinary modifier.
This matters in an account mentioning an officeholder and then praising that person. The target must distinguish the official role from the praise. Otherwise a translation can make an evaluative phrase appear to be a job title or turn an established title into a personal compliment. The phrase’s internal structure is relevant before target gender or case agreement is considered.
Plural reference can require a different noun stem
The Tibetan study groups markers including rnams and dag as plural material in its corpus analysis. Such source plurality must be preserved in Bosnian, but the target is not formed by appending an invariant translation of a Tibetan plural marker to every dictionary noun.
The Bosnian specifications illustrate dijete and djeca for child and children. A Tibetan report referring to several children therefore requires recognition of the target noun’s actual plural paradigm. A translator who merely retains the singular stem and adds a separate generic plural word can miss a basic distinction that the source already established. Number must be interpreted at the phrase level and then expressed through the appropriate target form.
An address is different from a description
The Bosnian paradigm also provides vocative forms such as gospodine and doktore. A Tibetan phrase naming or describing a doctor inside a statement is not the same task as directly addressing that doctor. The target case choice depends on the phrase’s function in the translated utterance.
In a written exchange, a line addressing an official may be followed by a sentence reporting what the official did. The same individual can consequently require different target forms across those two uses. Neither repeated identity nor an unchanged source title means the target form should remain fixed. Read the Tibetan phrase boundaries and discourse function together, then choose the Bosnian inflection that expresses that specific use.
Language references