In Catalan, not everything has to be 'ours'

PalmHave you ever stopped to think why, before a performance begins, they ask us "Turn off your mobile phones"Do we really need to specify that the phones are ours? Is there any real possibility that, at that moment, someone will understand that they should turn off the phone of a stranger sitting three rows behind them? The formula is neither strange nor ''Incorrect,' of course. Now, does the possessive add any information that isn't already obvious?

Possessives, as you know, are determiners that agree with the noun they accompany ('my books', 'my notebook', 'our houses') and establish a link between the noun and a possessor. However, the fact that the language has this resource doesn't mean it should be activated every time there is a relationship of possession. In fact, the usual functioning of our language shows the opposite: the possessive tends to be omitted when the context or the sentence structure already makes the relationship between the noun and the possessor clear. There are many cases in which this relationship is expressed in other ways, especially through weak pronouns and the definite article. In these contexts, the possessive adds nothing new and, therefore, is redundant.

Duplicating a link

The most obvious case is that of body parts. If someone says "I've broken my arm," no one interprets it as referring to someone else's arm. The pronoun 'm' already establishes the relationship with the subject and makes any possessive unnecessary. Saying "I've broken my arm" adds no information; it simply duplicates a link that has already been established. The same occurs with phrases like 'we have a headache,' 'they've had a tooth pulled,' 'they've twisted their ankle,' or 'they've washed their hair.' In all these constructions, the combination of a weak pronoun and a definite article already expresses the inherent possessive relationship. This behavior is not limited to the bodily realm. We also find it in actions that directly affect a person and in which the indirect object identifies the possessor: ''Their flight has been cancelled', 'Their schedule has been changed', 'We have been granted permission'. In these sentences, saying "their 'wants'" or "their 'schedule'"It would not be inadmissible from a normative point of view, but it does not provide any information that is not already clear with the pronoun.

This criterion is particularly tested in administrative and institutional language, an area where the habit of adding possessives almost by default has become widespread, in phrases like 'submit your application', 'attach your documentation', or 'review your personal data'. However, in a form or procedure addressed to a single recipient, the application, documentation, and data already implicitly belong to that person. Saying "submit the application" or "attach the documentation" creates no ambiguity and avoids the use of an element that, in this context, neither delimits nor contrasts anything. The possessive, here, does not refine the meaning; it simply repeats information unnecessarily. This does not mean, of course, that possessives should be systematically eliminated. They are necessary when they introduce a distinction that cannot be deduced from the context or when they avoid real ambiguity. If we say "Pol and Joan looked at the mother," the sentence can be equivocal: is it their mother or someone else's? In contrast, "Pol and Joan looked at their mother" eliminates the uncertainty and clearly identifies the referent.

It is also justified when the relationship of possession is not immediately recoverable or when we want to specify a concrete link. If we write that someone "published their first book," the possessive indicates that it is that author's first book, and not the first volume of a collection or publishing series. Here, the determiner does provide relevant information.

With nouns that express actions—'arrival,' 'intervention,' 'reconstruction,' 'approval'—the possessive can have several nuances. In 'their intervention was brief,' the possessive identifies the agent of the action, and the construction sounds natural because it clearly defines who intervenes. However, in a sentence like 'they sent us the minutes a few days earlier to expedite their approval,' the language offers a more appropriate alternative: 'to expedite their approval.' The pronoun takes up 'minutes' and establishes the relationship with the noun 'approval' without needing to add the possessive.

Another aspect that often generates doubts is the formal variation. In the feminine singular, forms such as 'mia' coexist.and 'mia', 'tuya' and 'tuya', 'suya' and 'suya'. The forms inThe '-va' forms are common in Eastern Catalan; the '-ua' forms are typical of Western Catalan and are also present in many Balearic variants. Both are perfectly acceptable in formal contexts and are part of the system. Saying "madre mía" or "madre mía," therefore, does not alter the function of the possessive: the question remains whether it is necessary to use it in that specific context.

New information

A practical criterion might be to ask whether the possessive introduces new information or simply reiterates a relationship that has already been established. If we say "I've left the keys on the table," the listener interprets, unless the context indicates otherwise, that they are the speaker's keys. It will only be useful to say "my keys" if there is a contrast (that is, if there are more keys involved), because in this way we distinguish them from other keys.

If we return to the initial sentence, we can clearly see the mechanism: "Turn off your mobile phones" is a complete instruction, because the situation already determines that everyone must turn off theirs. Adding 'yours' doesn't change the meaning or prevent any confusion. In Catalan, therefore, not everything we say is explicit. Often, when we don't say it, the sentence gains clarity and better reflects the genuine workings of the language.