Re: "Difficult" clauses

IMO, many sentences like these are easier to translate if they are
rewritten in more "formal" English.  N.B. I did NOT say "correct"
or "proper."  E.g., "what...for" often only means "why."

Senjecan has a rule that verb + preposition + object, when possible,
is to be understood as verb + direct object.  E.g., "go with me" is
translated as "accompany me."

"We spent all night talking about I can't remember what."
"We spent all night talking about that which (what) I can't
remember."
In Senjecas:
we all night what (yeti) I remember can not discussing spent.

talking about = discussing, with "what I can't remember" as the
direct
object.

There are no relative pronouns, etc., in Senjecas.  The
particle "yeti"
relates the clause to the sentence.

"She bought I lost count how many kinds of cheese."
"She bought many kinds of cheese (the number) of which I (have) lost
count."
In Senjecas:
she how-many (yeti) I to-remember fail many kinds cheese bought.

More realistically, this would be rendered in Senjecas as two
independent clauses:
She many kinds cheese bought.  I how-many to remember fail.

"What did you bring the book that I didn't want to be read to out of
up
for?"
"Why did you bring up the book out of which I did not want to be
read to?"

bring up = mention or carry to a higher level??

If "mention" is meant then in Senjecas:
you why which (yeti) out-of I to-me read became want not book
mentioned.

"become" is used to form the passive voice.

If "carry to a higher level" is meant then in Senjecas:
you why which (yeti) out-of I to-me read became want not
book raised.

I hope I got all this straight!

Charlie

Reply