訊息: 23
語言: English
Ilmen (顯示個人資料) 2012年4月7日下午2:51:23
I find this oddly strange that you can use "por ke" whereas you cannot use "pri ke". I always thought the pattern [verbo + ke-subfrazo] as an abbreviation of [verbo + substantivo(-n) + ke-subfrazo], and so that "mi pensas, ke li tamen venos" would be a shortened version of "mi pensas tion, ke li tamen venos".
But if it really were, "pri ke" would also be just as correct as "por ke" as an abbreviation of "pri tio, ke". Isn't it?
For instance, "Tio temas pri la fakto, ke tute ne pluvis dum tri monatoj." = "tio temas pri tio, ke (...)." = "tio temas pri ke (...).".
Why the last alternative wouldn't be possible then? Is this due to usage reason or is there some semantic or syntactic cause underlying?
But if it really were, "pri ke" would also be just as correct as "por ke" as an abbreviation of "pri tio, ke". Isn't it?
For instance, "Tio temas pri la fakto, ke tute ne pluvis dum tri monatoj." = "tio temas pri tio, ke (...)." = "tio temas pri ke (...).".
Why the last alternative wouldn't be possible then? Is this due to usage reason or is there some semantic or syntactic cause underlying?
Ilmen (顯示個人資料) 2012年4月7日下午9:37:04
Ĉu vere? So this is only a matter of frequency. It's perfect then. 
Thus what I said about ke-subfrazoj is valid, isn't it?
As for me, I tend to consider the "ke" conjuncion as a mere tool to link a whole sentence to a substantive (such as "tio", "ideo" or event-related nouns like "fakto" or "okazo"), and when I see it used directly with a verb, I assume there is a hidden container word "tio(n)" before it.
Thus what I said about ke-subfrazoj is valid, isn't it?
As for me, I tend to consider the "ke" conjuncion as a mere tool to link a whole sentence to a substantive (such as "tio", "ideo" or event-related nouns like "fakto" or "okazo"), and when I see it used directly with a verb, I assume there is a hidden container word "tio(n)" before it.