Tibetan to Norwegian: distinguish a remembered occasion from every occasion
The English gloss when does not select one Norwegian conjunction
NTNU’s Norwegian on the Web distinguishes da for a single past happening or period from når for customary or repeated actions. It also uses når for future events. Thus the translator needs the event’s temporal pattern before choosing the Norwegian connection.
Jäschke’s historical Tibetan grammar describes several expressions that can receive a when-type interpretation, including ནས་ in temporal sequences and ན་ in conditional or temporal clauses. Those descriptions do not provide a one-word Norwegian substitution. The relevant source construction and surrounding account must establish whether the event occurred once, recurred, or remains prospective.
A past tense does not necessarily require da
NTNU explicitly includes repeated past actions under når. A Tibetan account of a recurring practice should therefore not receive da merely because the whole narrative concerns an earlier period. Repetition and past time are independent properties of the source event.
The distinction matters between recounting one arrival and describing what happened whenever a person arrived. Both can name the same place and action. Translating each with the same Norwegian connector can erase whether the Tibetan passage reports an individual occurrence or establishes a recurring relationship between events. A correct past verb form cannot restore that missing distinction.
After doing something is not always simultaneous with it
Jäschke illustrates ནས་ in sequences interpreted as after or when, and separately describes དང་ with a verbal expression as marking synchronism. His historical examples show why every temporal link cannot be flattened into an unspecified same-time relationship.
Before selecting the Norwegian construction, determine whether one event precedes the next, overlaps with it, or supplies a condition for it. A source instruction to act after another step is complete should retain that sequence. Rendering both steps as concurrent can alter the instruction even where every action word is translated accurately. The Norwegian da-versus-når decision is only part of preserving the temporal relation.
A conditional possibility should not become a remembered fact
Jäschke notes that ན་ frequently has an if interpretation and also discusses conditional when readings. An older written Tibetan clause containing this element must therefore be understood within the passage rather than automatically classified as a past occurrence.
NTNU’s examples of når with future action show that a Norwegian temporal clause can concern an event that has not yet happened. That does not mean every Tibetan conditional should be rewritten as a guaranteed future occurrence. Preserve whether the source presents a condition, an expected time, or an established fact. In this direction, the essential distinctions are one occasion versus repeated occasions, sequence versus overlap, and realized events versus prospective or conditional ones. Selecting a Norwegian connector after making those distinctions protects the source’s event structure instead of letting the broad gloss when decide it.
Language references