Re: "Difficult" clauses

caeruleancentaur wrote:
> 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."
I don't think that's a very close equivalent; "that which I can't
remember" doesn't sound specific enough. I'm not entirely sure why it
doesn't sound right, but turn it around: "That which I can't remember is
what we spent all night talking about". Does that sound right? It might
be better to paraphrase it as "We spent all night talking, but I can't
remember what it was that we were talking about." Or how about "We spent
all night talking about something I don't remember what it was."

In Minza:
Kynsatša dio laimu akahle nöy kö dža yšomlu die tsoi řu.

ky-n-satš-a dio lai-mu akahl-e nöy kö
3p-REFL-talk-IMPF during night-LOC entire-LOC about something

dža y-šoml-u die tsoi ř-u
that 1s-remember-PF not what be-PF

(Well, this is the first I've used "řu" ... I've thought of "ři" as
indeclinable, but this phrase seems to want to be perfective for some
reason. So why not ... ři "to be, imperfective" vs. řu "to be, perfective"?)

Reply