Tibetan to Punjabi: an ownership expression and an accompanying person need different readings
The genitive form participates in target agreement
Gill and Gleason’s Punjabi grammar explains that pronominal genitives follow an adjective-like inflection pattern. A Tibetan ownership phrase therefore needs more than a target pronoun identifying the owner. The Punjabi form must fit the possessed noun and its construction.
The grammar illustrates ਮੇਰਾ ਮੁੰਡਾ, my boy, and ਸਾਡੀ ਕੁੜੀ, our girl. These examples vary in owner and possessed noun, so they should not be treated as a minimal test of one grammatical feature. They show that both relationships need to be recovered: whose child is meant and which target noun describes that child. A Tibetan family passage can change either without changing the other.
With me does not claim ownership of a companion
The Punjabi grammar also uses a genitive pronoun before certain postpositions, illustrating ਮੇਰੇ ਨਾਲ for with me. A genitive-looking target form consequently does not always express ownership. In translating a Tibetan travel account, identify whether a person owns an item or accompanies another person.
Garrett and Hill’s written Tibetan analysis makes case-marked phrase boundaries relevant to recovering these relations. A Tibetan expression about belongings travelling with somebody is especially easy to misread if ownership and accompaniment are collapsed. The companion may carry an item without owning it, while the owner may remain elsewhere. The Punjabi translation should preserve each relation rather than make every linked person a possessor.
Near and remote reference can keep family members apart
Gill and Gleason distinguish ਇਹ from ਉਹ for nearer and more remote reference when the forms contrast. Garrett and Hill similarly identify Tibetan ḥdi and de as this and that. A Tibetan contrast between people or belongings therefore has a target distinction available, but its referents still need to be tracked.
A speaker introducing a child nearby and mentioning another child elsewhere should not merge them because the ownership phrases look similar. Identify which source expression points to which person, then choose the Punjabi demonstrative and possessive construction accordingly. The target needs to retain the distinction between location in the reference situation and membership in a family.
A respectful title is separate from the ownership link
The Punjabi grammar describes ਜੀ after names and titles as a respect particle. That use should not be confused with either a genitive ending or a signal that several people are involved. A Tibetan passage can respectfully identify an owner without changing the number of owners or possessions.
In a family introduction, the Tibetan title identifies the person, the possessive phrase identifies a relationship and any accompaniment phrase identifies who is together. Punjabi expresses those functions through different resources. Preserve them separately so that the target does not turn a respectful reference into an ownership claim or turn a travelling companion into a relative.
Language references