Re: A C-a grammar question

Adam Walker wrote:
(snipping Ray Brown's excellent discussion, except--)
> > So maybe it is the subject of the infinitive that
> > ought to be marked
> > rather than the object  :)
> >
That's sort of what I was getting at in my roundabout way.

>
> «Echa, esti junu fapu grandu pera undrari _AD_ junu
> cadoligu ils cunxueduñis djils huidelis.» dichid
> al chimpeda.
>
> "Already, it's a deed great for to.honor to a catholic
> the customs of.the faithful," said the beggar.
>
> I like.  Pondering . . .
>
Yes, makes sense, especially as it preserves the "dative" sense of the Latin
construction.  A nice variation on the usual Romance constructions that I
pointed out.
-----------------------------------------
As for the subjunctive...I always loved the Latin/Romance forms, but with
disuse, lots of grey areas have developed :-(( But (with ref. to Spanish):

ALWAYS in (1) contrary to fact (if SUBJ...then COND)-- (2) purpose clauses
(para que...)-- (3) orders, prohibitions-- (4) after verbs of doubt and
fear.

After certain TIME conjuctions ('when' and 'before' in part.) when they
refer to indefinite/doubtful states/acts in the future...
cuando viene... 'when he comes...' (You assume/know he will)
cuando venga... 'whenever he comes... (he may or may not)

One I usually forget is: ¿hay alguién que hable español? and, No hay nadie
que hable español.  And _como + subj._ is not the same as _como + indic._
but I don't remember how....

Of course one way around all this is, simply to lose the subjunctive (boo
hiss).