Tibetan to Rundi: identify a person, locate an object and mark its owner differently
Tibetan copulas cannot all become Rundi ni
Tibetan distinguishes essential copulas used for identity or inherent attributes from existential copulas associated with existence, location and possession. Rundi, also called Kirundi, likewise does not use one identical expression for every English-like is. The translation should therefore begin with what the Tibetan clause asserts, rather than choosing the most familiar target copula.
Cox’s course contrasts ni and its negative si with uses of -ri, including location. Its attested umwana ar’i muhira means the child is at home. A Tibetan statement locating a child must remain a location statement; using a target identity pattern just because the source contains a copula would describe the wrong kind of relationship.
The reverse distinction matters when the Tibetan passage identifies a person’s role. A teacher being at a house and a person being a teacher are separate assertions. The source’s essential or existential construction helps distinguish them, while the Rundi target must select its own corresponding predicate rather than treating location as a profession or identity.
Having something is not the same as that thing being nearby
Tournadre’s Tibetan ཡོད་རེད་ examples include both a person having a car and airplanes existing in a place. Cox teaches Rundi afise as he or she has, contrasted with bafise for they have. The Tibetan clause’s meaning determines whether a possession construction is appropriate; the source copula’s recurrence alone cannot decide.
A Tibetan message about a teacher’s books can mention ownership and present location in adjacent clauses. Rundi should preserve both without turning the classroom into a possessor or the teacher into a mere location. Choosing a have expression for every occurrence would falsely assign ownership, while choosing a location expression everywhere would erase who has the books.
A possessive linker agrees with the owned thing
Cox explains that the Rundi possessive particle follows the possessed noun and agrees with that noun rather than its owner. The course illustrates imirima y’abantu, the gardens of the people. This contrasts with interpreting a Tibetan genitive particle simply as a detachable target of: Rundi requires the relationship to fit the noun being identified.
The number of owners and the number of possessions must therefore remain separate. Tibetan may describe one respected person’s several gardens or several people’s single shared place. A target agreement choice should follow the appropriate owned noun, rather than becoming plural merely because an honorific reference looks socially elevated or because several owners are mentioned.
A spatial source and an interior are different kinds of information
Tournadre’s case overview distinguishes origin from destination and localization. Cox contrasts Rundi kuva mu muriro, coming out of the fire, with kuva ku muriro, coming away from the fire. The target preposition helps distinguish an interior relation from being near the outside, while the verb contributes departure.
When a Tibetan account says someone left a place, determine whether it describes exiting an enclosure or moving away from its vicinity. A source ablative relation does not automatically resolve that target distinction. Preserving the point of departure without its spatial relation can make the Rundi reader imagine a materially different event, especially when the source concerns escape, shelter or movement between rooms.
Language references