Welsh to Fijian: my does not specify how an item is possessed
A Welsh possessive identifies an owner without a Fijian category
Welsh Universal Dependencies illustrates fy nhŷ, my house, as a dependent possessive construction. The initial change in the Welsh noun is part of that construction. It does not separately classify the possession according to how the speaker uses it.
In his Fijian primer, linguist Albert J. Schütz contrasts noqu vale, my house, with other ways of expressing my before or within a noun. A Welsh-to-Fijian translation therefore needs more than a fixed replacement for fy. The owner may remain the speaker while the target possessive construction changes according to the relationship with the thing being discussed.
Food and drink illustrate different constructions
Schütz gives kequ ika, my fish, and mequ bia, my beer, alongside ligaqu, my hand. His discussion distinguishes edible items, drinkable items, body parts and kinship terms, and other possessions.
For an original Welsh meal arrangement, the speaker’s fish and the speaker’s drink have the same owner but different intended roles. A changed Fijian possessive form does not mean that the drink suddenly belongs to a companion. Conversely, using one target possessive expression for every item merely because Welsh repeats fy can miss distinctions relevant to the target. Identify the possessed thing and its relation to the speaker rather than tracking only whether the first-person reference remains visible.
The same kind of item can enter a different relationship
Schütz specifically discusses dalo, taro. Although it is ordinarily associated with eating, his example allows a general possessive expression when the taro is meant for sale. The classification is therefore not simply an immutable dictionary category attached to the crop.
An original Welsh market message might describe produce the speaker has set aside to sell, while another describes produce reserved for the speaker’s meal. Both can use an ordinary Welsh possessive, but the practical relationship differs. A Fijian translation should not turn stock for sale into a stated meal allocation merely because the noun denotes something edible. Preserve an explicit Welsh explanation of intended use; it can determine a distinction that the short possessive alone leaves open.
The possessor must still be distinguished from an object participant
The Welsh documentation also gives fy ngweld in an object-related use meaning seeing me. That construction differs from fy followed by a possessed ordinary noun, despite the shared dependent pronoun form.
In an original Welsh account of someone seeing the speaker’s food, the person seen, the food seen, and the food’s owner are separate possible roles. A Fijian possessive form should be selected only for a genuine possession or association. Treating every fy expression as ownership could turn seeing the speaker into seeing an unspecified item belonging to the speaker. Conversely, treating possession as an object pronoun could remove the food from the event altogether. Recover the following Welsh noun or verbnoun first, then preserve the owner, the entity being discussed, and any intended consumption or sale relationship actually supplied in the source.
Language references