@doerless loT

It is extremely common to make the /loT not show the doer, taking the option in laHkarmaNic.... This does not confuse the users of the language, because context always makes clear who the intended doer of a /loT is. But it confuses the translators to English a helluva lot.

Example. If rAma राम stares at rAvaNa रावण in the eyes and says —

sItA mahyan dIyatAm सीता मह्यं दीयताम्

then what rAma राम means is clearly "give me sItA सीता or I'll lop off your ten heads". Even though the sentence does not have any word or grammatical suffix meaning "you", it is highly unlikely that rAma राम wants anyone else to do the giving. So the correct translation of that sentence in that context is —

"give me my wife back"

However very few translators dare to translate like that, and they try to use some English passive or English impersonal, to reflect the fact that the original Sanskrit does not have any second person markers there. So we get a lot of funny translations like —

"let sItA सीता be given"
"sItA सीता should be given"
"may the giving if sItA सीता happen"