Tibetan to Tigrinya: the article and adjective can carry different descriptive information
A child noun can be accompanied by a gender distinction
Bulakh’s Tigrinya description illustrates the same child noun with different gender-marked articles. The contrast ʔɨti k’olʕa and ʔɨta k’olʕa identifies a boy and a girl in the cited examples. A Tibetan child reference must therefore be interpreted for the intended individual before the target article is chosen.
The translator should not infer the child’s identity simply from which adult is speaking or whose child is mentioned. A Tibetan narrator can discuss another person’s child while retaining a separate perspective on the event. The Tigrinya noun phrase must identify the child supported by the source rather than import a gender assumption from the narrator.
A descriptive adjective may change internally
Bulakh gives bərrik and bərrak as masculine and feminine singular forms meaning high. This illustrates an internal target alternation rather than a universal instruction to add one feminine suffix to every adjective. A Tibetan quality description needs the appropriate Tigrinya form for its actual noun and construction.
Garrett and Hill’s written Tibetan study distinguishes adjectives in noun phrases from other lexical material. Recover which source noun the description modifies before constructing target agreement. If a Tibetan passage describes a tall structure beside a person, the target descriptive form must attach to the structure rather than follow assumptions about the person standing nearby.
Feminine agreement can contribute a size interpretation with some things
Bulakh notes that some inanimate nouns allow feminine agreement with a diminutive interpretation, illustrating a table and a small table. This is a scoped lexical pattern, not a rule that every feminine Tigrinya noun means something small. A Tibetan size contrast may therefore interact with target agreement in ways that require noun-specific interpretation.
The translator must preserve whether the source actually distinguishes a smaller item. Choosing a feminine agreement pattern simply because the Tibetan description sounds affectionate could add a physical-size interpretation not supported by the passage. Conversely, when size identifies which object is meant, that information should not be discarded as though it were only an optional stylistic effect.
A lexical title does not reduce to a size adjective
Garrett and Hill distinguish Tibetan blon-chen, prime minister, from blon-po chen-po, great minister. That contrast matters before any Tigrinya adjective agreement is selected. One source phrase names an office, whereas the other supplies an evaluation of a person.
In a Tibetan description containing an official, a child and a small object, the target must preserve which words identify people and which describe properties. The official title should remain a title, the article should identify the intended child and the size expression should modify the intended object. Tigrinya agreement can help express those relations, but it cannot repair a source phrase that was interpreted as the wrong kind of description.
Language references