Possession in translation is much broader than legal ownership. English possessives and of-phrases can express kinship, body-part relations, authorship, institutional association, part-whole structure, control, temporary custody, characteristics and event participants. “Lina’s book,” “Lina’s brother,” “the car’s engine,” and “the company’s decision” all use possessive-looking grammar for different semantic relations.
People searching for how to translate possessives and genitives, have-constructions, kinship possession, body parts, part-whole relations or ownership are solving a relation-classification problem. Languages divide alienable and inalienable possession differently, use possessive pronouns, genitives, datives, locatives or existential structures, and may omit possessives where English requires them. Precise translation preserves the relation rather than copying the genitive marker.
This article owns the possession-and-genitive precision layer. It covers ownership, custody, kinship, body parts, part-whole, authorship, origin, institutional affiliation, control, characteristic relations, event nominalizations, existential have, reflexive possession, ambiguous genitives and QA. The central rule is to ask what relation the possessive construction actually expresses before choosing the target form.
Ownership
The first precision question is what grammatical relation the source encodes. Possession can express legal or ordinary ownership of an object. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is using a broader associative target that weakens ownership or an ownership form where source only indicates use. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to paraphrase as ‘belongs to’ and test fit For example, “Lina’s bicycle” may mean bicycle owned by Lina. Before release, check context for borrowing/custody. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Temporary Possession and Custody
This feature looks lexical on the surface but is controlled by the source language’s argument or noun system. Having an object does not always mean owning it. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is translating custody as legal ownership. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to distinguish possess, hold, carry, use and own For example, “I have the keys” can mean temporary control. Before release, ask whether ‘belongs to me’ is supported. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Kinship
Languages divide this semantic territory differently, so a one-word substitution is often unreliable. Possessive grammar can encode family relationship rather than ownership. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is using a target possessive form inappropriate for inalienable relations. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to identify kinship relation and target convention For example, “Mira’s brother” means brother related to Mira, not owned by her. Before release, check target kinship grammar. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Body Parts
The safest method is to recover roles and quantity structure before choosing target morphology. Many languages treat body parts as inalienably possessed and may omit explicit possessors or use special constructions. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is translating English possessive pronoun mechanically. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to identify whose body part from event participant For example, “she raised her hand” may use article rather than her in target. Before release, possessor remains she. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Part-Whole Relations
A natural target may require a different construction while preserving the same participants and relation. Possessive/genitive forms can connect component to larger whole. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is treating the whole as owner in an unnatural or misleading sense. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to paraphrase ‘X is part of Y’ For example, “the car’s engine” = engine that is part of car. Before release, do not convert to type-of relation. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Authorship and Creation
The first precision question is what grammatical relation the source encodes. A genitive can indicate creator rather than owner. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is translating “Shakespeare’s plays” as plays owned by Shakespeare. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to ask whether relation is wrote/created/designed For example, “the architect’s design.” Before release, preserve creator role. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Origin and Source
This feature looks lexical on the surface but is controlled by the source language’s argument or noun system. Possessive-looking forms can indicate origin or source. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is using ownership when source means from. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to paraphrase as ‘from X’ For example, “the company’s data” may mean data produced/held by company. Before release, check provenance context. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Institutional Affiliation
Languages divide this semantic territory differently, so a one-word substitution is often unreliable. “The university’s researchers” can indicate affiliation rather than possession. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is suggesting people are property. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to use target affiliation construction For example, researchers at/of the university. Before release, preserve relationship and dignity. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Control
The safest method is to recover roles and quantity structure before choosing target morphology. Possession can express control over resources, systems or rights. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is confusing control with legal ownership. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to identify operational authority For example, “the administrator’s account” may mean account controlled by administrator. Before release, check system roles. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Characteristic Relations
A natural target may require a different construction while preserving the same participants and relation. Genitives can assign a property, measure or feature to an entity. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is forcing ownership language. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to paraphrase with has/feature For example, “the building’s height” = height of building. Before release, target naturalness. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Event Participants in Genitives
The first precision question is what grammatical relation the source encodes. Nominalizations can use genitives for agents or affected entities. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is misidentifying who acted. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to convert event noun to verb For example, “the committee’s rejection of the proposal” = committee rejected proposal. Before release, map roles. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Subjective vs Objective Genitive
This feature looks lexical on the surface but is controlled by the source language’s argument or noun system. A genitive around an event noun can correspond to agent or object. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is assuming all genitives are agents. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to try active-clause paraphrases For example, “the city’s destruction” can mean destruction of the city, where city is patient. Before release, use context. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Have-Constructions
Languages divide this semantic territory differently, so a one-word substitution is often unreliable. Languages express possession through verbs meaning have, existential structures, datives or locatives. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is copying have literally into target where unnatural or changing experiencer relation into ownership. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to identify semantic possession/state first For example, a language may say “to me there is a book.” Before release, same possessor and possessed entity. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Alienable vs Inalienable Possession
The safest method is to recover roles and quantity structure before choosing target morphology. Some languages grammatically distinguish relationships that can be transferred from inherent ones such as kin/body parts. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is choosing wrong possessive class. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to classify relation in target grammar For example, my book vs my mother may use different possessive markers. Before release, consult target convention. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Reflexive Possession
A natural target may require a different construction while preserving the same participants and relation. Some languages distinguish subject-owned from third-party-owned possessives. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is using ordinary possessive and pointing to wrong possessor. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to resolve clause subject and possessor For example, an equivalent of “Lina took her own book” differs from another woman’s book. Before release, trace antecedent. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Possessor Raising and Datives
The first precision question is what grammatical relation the source encodes. Some languages express affected possession by making possessor a separate argument. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is translating structure literally and changing event roles. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to map possessor plus body/object relation For example, a source may express “I washed him the hands” meaning I washed his hands. Before release, reconstruct natural target event. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Double Genitives
This feature looks lexical on the surface but is controlled by the source language’s argument or noun system. English expressions such as “a friend of Lina’s” combine indefinite membership with possessive relation. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is translating as Lina’s only friend or a unique friend. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to preserve one-of-set interpretation For example, a friend of Lina’s = one member of her friend set. Before release, check definiteness. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Possessive Ambiguity
Languages divide this semantic territory differently, so a one-word substitution is often unreliable. One genitive can support ownership, authorship, subject, object or association readings. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is choosing the first dictionary-like possessive construction. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to list candidate relations before drafting For example, “John’s picture” can mean picture owned by John, depicting John or made by John. Before release, use surrounding context. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Possession in Technical Systems
The safest method is to recover roles and quantity structure before choosing target morphology. Documentation uses genitives for component membership, control, configuration and data ownership. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is confusing account owner with account administrator or system component with property. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to consult system architecture and terminology For example, “user’s permissions” can mean permissions assigned to user. Before release, check role model. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Possession in Law and Policy
A natural target may require a different construction while preserving the same participants and relation. Ownership, custody, beneficial interest and control can be legally distinct. The target may use a pronoun, case marker, classifier, preposition, verb alternation or word order that has no visible one-to-one match with the source. Precision therefore depends on preserving who participates, how entities relate, whether an action is self-directed or mutual, how a noun is counted, and what kind of possession or association is actually asserted.
The common failure is using ordinary possessive target that collapses legal distinctions. Because the resulting sentence can remain fluent, the error may survive ordinary proofreading. It becomes important in instructions, science, education, legal documents, product descriptions, family relations and technical explanations, where one grammatical choice can change actor roles, quantity, ownership or the nature of an event. A dedicated relation-level review is therefore more reliable than intuition alone.
A practical method is to use defined legal relations and established terminology For example, property held on behalf of another is not necessarily owned by holder. Before release, check governing definitions. This creates a language-independent checkpoint. When the source leaves a distinction unspecified but the target forces a choice, use context or a neutral construction rather than guessing. The goal is not to preserve surface grammar; it is to preserve the relation the grammar encodes.
Practical Diagnostic Workflow
For difficult material, build a compact role map before translation. Identify participants, event type, direction of action, count/mass status, units, ownership relation and any target-language distinction the source does not overtly mark. Draft after the map is stable. Then reconstruct the same map from the target. If the target adds a possessor, turns mutual action into self-action, changes an uncountable substance into individual objects or moves a recipient into a location role, revise.
AI-assisted translation benefits from the same discipline. Models can infer likely actors, classifiers, ownership relations and reflexive readings automatically. Those choices are often reasonable but are still choices. Treat them as hypotheses. Check the target against explicit source evidence, especially when person, number, gender, countability or participant roles affect real-world interpretation.
Recovery When the Relation Has Drifted
Repair the semantic relation before the wording. Strip away unsupported target detail, restore the correct participants or noun interpretation, and choose a target construction that carries the source relation naturally. Then inspect agreement, pronouns, articles, quantifiers and later references because these often depend on the corrected structure. Precision recovery is complete only when the entire local network becomes consistent again.
Quality-Assurance Checklist
- Classify possession relation.
- Distinguish ownership from custody/control.
- Preserve kinship/body-part relations.
- Keep part-whole distinct from type-of.
- Identify authorship/origin.
- Use affiliation rather than ownership for people.
- Map genitives around nominalizations.
- Resolve subjective/objective genitive.
- Choose target have/existential construction naturally.
- Check alienable/inalienable class.
- Resolve reflexive possessor.
- Audit legal ownership/control distinctions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a possessive always mean ownership?
No. It can express kinship, part-whole, authorship, affiliation, control, origin and many other relations.
Why are body-part possessives different across languages?
Many languages treat body parts as inalienable and use articles, datives or special possessive forms instead of English-style pronouns.
What is a subjective genitive?
A genitive corresponding to the actor of a related event; an objective genitive corresponds to the affected object. Context decides.
Can ‘have’ be translated literally?
Not always. Some languages express possession through existence, location or dative constructions.
What is alienable possession?
A grammatical/semantic category for possessions that can typically be transferred, contrasted with inherent relations such as kinship or body parts in some languages.
Can AI overstate ownership?
Yes. It may choose a simple possessive interpretation for broader association or control relations. Classify the relation explicitly.
Where This Fits in the eduKate Translation Architecture
Use the reflexive/middle article for reflexive possession, the nominalization article for genitive event roles, the definitions/taxonomies lane for part-vs-type relations, and the legal translation owner where ownership/control has formal legal effect. Final QA belongs to Translate Precisely verification.
Final Principle
Translate the relation behind the possessive. Ask whether the source means ownership, custody, kinship, part-whole, authorship, affiliation, control, origin or event participation. Then choose the target genitive, pronoun, preposition, dative or existential construction that preserves that relation without implying more ownership than the source states.