Tibetan to Uzbek Latin: an attached question suffix does not identify what is unknown
A confirmation question needs the target suffix construction
The Uzbek documentation states that the question suffix -mi is written attached to its host. A Tibetan question translated into Uzbek should therefore be reconstructed as a target question rather than written as a sequence of isolated source equivalents with a detached question word added at the end.
This is an orthographic and grammatical choice, but it does not independently identify what information the question requests. A Tibetan enquiry proposing an identity for confirmation differs from an open question asking who or which person is involved. Preserve the source information gap before deciding which Uzbek question construction expresses it.
Which and how many request different kinds of answers
The Uzbek documentation lists qaysi and qancha among interrogative forms that can function as determiners. A Tibetan question selecting an item from a set and one asking for a quantity should consequently remain different enquiries. A target interrogative should attach to the noun whose identity or amount is actually in question.
Garrett and Hill distinguish cardinal and ordinal material in written Tibetan, including gñis, two, and gñis-pa, second. A question asking about the second item does not necessarily ask how many items there are. The Uzbek translation must keep the ordering function separate from counting, rather than infer a quantity question from any recognised numeral.
One can introduce an item rather than emphasise its count
The Uzbek documentation explains that bir, one, can function as an indefinite article in the relevant usage. A Tibetan source phrase introducing an unspecified entity therefore needs its reference status interpreted, rather than assume that every target bir places numerical emphasis on exactly one item.
This is useful when a Tibetan account first introduces a person or object and later asks which one is meant. The initial phrase may establish an indefinite referent, while the later question requests identification. Translating both as pure numerical statements would lose the development of reference across the exchange. Determine whether the source numeral counts, introduces or ranks before choosing the target expression.
The person asked and the proposition asserted remain distinct
Zeisler describes Standard Spoken Tibetan information-seeking questions as centred on the addressee’s perspective. An Uzbek question suffix or interrogative does not itself encode every source distinction about who is expected to know the answer. Retain any relevant attribution when translating a dialogue that shifts between a question, an inference and an answer.
A Tibetan speaker may propose that an item is the second one, ask the listener to confirm it and then report the listener’s correction. The Uzbek version should preserve which proposition was only proposed and which was supplied as information. Writing -mi correctly is necessary in its construction, but the larger translation must still keep the candidate item, the questioned fact and the person providing the correction aligned with the source.
Language references