Re: Translation theory; was: Subordinate Clauses

David wrote:
> I think this is where you are getting confused my sentence does NOT have
> an embedded 'I saw it' clause
> 'it' meaning the dog
> the embedded sentence is
David, this is becoming a reductio ad absurdum; I've patiently explained in
my last post why your *original* sentence was syntactically baffling to me
because it appeared to "squint."  Please note my term "APPEARED."  It was an
explanation of how it originally confused in its awkwardness, not a
contradiction of what you were trying to do with it.  But you seem more
interested in making comments like "The sentence above is actually your
sentence, so I take it you don't like your own sentence either" than in
responding to my explanations, which indicates to me that you are 1)
confused by them, 2) refusing to accept them, and/or 3) arguing for
argument's sake.   Roger Mills is the one who has given you the keenest
criticism about your analysis (I'm not interested in it) so I suggest you
chat him up on this issue if you still wish to pursue it.

As for your final response to my suggestions about translation--"I meant
same idea rather than same grammar"--well that's what I was after all along.
BINGO!  :)

> I'm English (native) and Spanish (second) bilingual.  I occasionally
> dabble with German and Old English, but never seriously enough to learn
> them properly, and I often forget a lot of what I've learnt.  Con? none
> really. I haven't got beyond random thoughts of what features a conlang
> I created might have.
Gotta start somewhere!  Why don't you turn to that, now?  I've been working
on T. on and off for thirty some years, and I can tell you it's a creative
joy.

Good luck!
Sally