Tibetan to Macedonian: a family possessor and an affected owner use different constructions
A short possessive clitic has a restricted noun-phrase use
Liljana Mitkovska’s study of Macedonian possession distinguishes possessive noun phrases from constructions where a possessor appears separately in the clause. It also describes postnominal dative clitics restricted to close kin relations. The examples majka mi and brat mu identify my mother and his brother.
A Tibetan family expression should therefore be translated through the relevant Macedonian relationship construction, but that short clitic pattern should not be extended indiscriminately to every kind of belonging. A person’s mother and a person’s equipment both involve a relationship, yet the target does not necessarily express them through identical noun-phrase patterns.
An explicit owner can follow na
Mitkovska illustrates knigata na Ana, Ann’s book, with the possessed noun followed by a na phrase identifying the owner. A Tibetan ownership expression needs the owner recovered before this target relation is assembled. The target order should not be copied from a source sequence of words without interpreting the whole phrase.
Garrett and Hill’s written Tibetan analysis places case markers at the ends of noun phrases. That boundary evidence helps distinguish the owner phrase from a neighbouring participant in the event. A Tibetan account can mention someone near a book without identifying that person as the book’s owner; the Macedonian translation must not create a na ownership relation merely from proximity.
The possessive agrees with the noun while identifying its owner
Mitkovska explains that Macedonian possessive pronouns identify person and number, with gender distinctions in third-person singular ownership, while agreeing with the head noun. Her example nejzinata kniga means her book. The target therefore expresses information about both the possession and its owner.
A Tibetan passage that identifies a woman’s book must keep that woman distinct from the grammatical properties of the target word for book. Changing the type or number of belongings can change target agreement without changing who owns them. Conversely, changing the owner requires preserving the source reference even when the possessed item stays the same.
A dative possessor can also be affected by the event
Mitkovska’s external-possession discussion connects certain dative-possessor constructions with a person being positively or negatively affected by what happens. A Tibetan report that someone’s property was damaged is not simply an inventory description. Its event structure and the owner’s involvement can matter to the appropriate Macedonian wording.
The source account might focus on the damaged object, the person suffering the loss or the person causing the damage. Preserve those roles rather than treat every dative-like target element as a recipient receiving something. A Tibetan phrase boundary identifies a constituent, but the translator still needs to establish what the complete event says about that constituent. In Macedonian, ownership, kinship and affected participation interact through constructions with different restrictions; selecting the right owner word alone does not finish the translation.
Language references