From: Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
> Douglas Koller writes:
> > That you can conflate all that into "ke" (plus "that" as a
> > subordinating conjunction) workably is admirable.
> Admirable? Hmm, you think it does not work?
Not meant as a dis or a backhanded compliment. A compliment.
Assuming * means not a possible interpretation:
> Mi vis' ke manga. -- I see who eats.
> *I see what you/he/she/... eats.
> Mi visa le ke manga. -- I see the one who eats.
> Mi vis' ke tu manga. -- I see that you eat.
> *I see what you eat.
> Mi visa le ke tu manga. -- I see what you eat.
> Mi vis' ke fimbre manga. -- I see that the woman eats.
> I see which woman eats.
> *I see what the woman eats.
Which would be: "Mi visa le ke fimbre manga"?
> To clarify:
>
> Mi vis' ke le fimbre manga. -- I see that the woman eats.
> *I see which woman eats.
> Mi vis' ke fimbre es ke manga. -- *I see that the woman eats.
> I see which woman eats.
Could we interpret the last one as "I see that it's a/the woman who's eating (as
opposed to a rabid puma)"? Or would that be: "Mi vis' ke es (le) fimbre ke
manga."?
How to deal with "which" when it refers to the entire previous clause (in French, "ce qui"):
He arrived late, which annoyed me. Il est arriv