I am working on my understanding and correct usage of participles and third person pronouns.

Having read PMEG on the use of si in complex sentences and running the sentence through Lingvoilo, I now wish to check it with real people. So, is there anything wrong with the sentence below? Can I use si here or is it confusing? Am I using the correct participle?

Rigardante lin, fosadas en sian ĝardenon, ŝia ardo por li estingiĝis.

Many thanks in advance for the assistance, education, and enlightenment.

Purists will say that an adverbial participle must refer to the subject in the sentence.

So they would probably want to rewrite your sentence as something like:

Rigardante lin, dum li fosadas en sia ĝardeno, ŝi rimarkis, ke ŝia ardo por li estingiĝis.

Of course, if he was digging in her garden and not his garden then that should be en ŝia ĝardeno

Simon Pure: So, is there anything wrong with the sentence below? Can I use si here or is it confusing? Am I using the correct participle?

Rigardante lin, fosadas en sian ĝardenon, ŝia ardo por li estingiĝis.

I found it a bit difficult to understand the intended meaning of the sentence, but not because of the adverbial participle "rigardante" (and not because of "si", which is correctly used). Perhaps it was a typing error when you wrote the finite form "fosadas". It had been easy to understand "fosadi" or "fosadan". Compared to that, it is perhaps a minor problem that the one who rigardas is not the "ardo" but "ŝi".

Simon Pure:I am working on my understanding and correct usage of participles and third person pronouns.

Having read PMEG on the use of si in complex sentences and running the sentence through Lingvoilo, I now wish to check it with real people. So, is there anything wrong with the sentence below? Can I use si here or is it confusing? Am I using the correct participle?

Rigardante lin, fosadas en sian ĝardenon, ŝia ardo por li estingiĝis.

Many thanks in advance for the assistance, education, and enlightenment.

- The subject of the whole sentence is "ardo". The participle adverbs always refer to the subject of the sentence. So, did you intend to say that it's "ŝia ardo" which is watching him, in a semi-metaphorical and slightly poetic turn of phrase?

- "En sia ĝardeno" would mean that the digger was inside the garden. Saying "en sian ĝardenon" is using the accusative of motion, indicates that the digger was outside the garden, and dug their way in. Was this your intention?

- Who is the subject of "fosadas" - him or her? It feels like there's been a word missed out to indicate this. You could use instead "fosanta" to make the distinction one way or the other.

"Rigardante lin, fosanta en sia ĝardeno"
would mean that it is the subject of "rigardante" (and thus the subject of the whole sentence as well) who is fosanta. If you were using "ŝia ardo" poetically for the subject to represent her, then this wouldn't make much sense with "fosanta" describe it. I've never heard of "fosanta amo".

"Rigardante lin, fosantan en sia ĝardeno"
would mean, with the agreement of lin and fosantan, that he is digging in his own garden, while being watched by her.

If I were to take an attempt at rewording your whole sentence slightly, it might be:

"Kiam/dum ŝi rigardis lin fosadantan en sia ĝardeno, ŝia ardo por li estingiĝis"

- This removes the problem of having ŝia ardo being that which actively rigardas.
- If you wanted to keep "rigardante", then it would probably make more sense to have a "ŝi" as the subject, with such a clause as "ŝi rimarkis/sentis, ke..." In my view, there is a shade of difference mine and sudanglo's translations. His sentence's meaning seems to have more of a focus on her rimarko, and mine on the estingiĝo of ŝia amo. But that's beyond grammar, and getting into literary style a bit, I think.

The whole issue of whether to say Rigardante lin fosanta en .., or fosantan en .. is a subtle one.

I suspect, I haven't done any searches in the Tekstaro, that after verbs of perception the nominative is more common, but in this case my lingvo-sento inclines me to the accusative.

Lingvaj Respondoj 96. is instructive as regards Zamenhof's attitude to the use of sia. I am with him in approving the use of lia/ŝia if that sounds better or makes the meaning clearer, when perhaps the grammatical purist would argue for sia .

Doubt can arise in the case of structures like Rigardante lin forirantan en .... ŝi as to whether any sia refers back to the subject of the sentence as a whole (ŝi), or to the subject of the participle forirantan (li).

Someone who has boned up on PMEG most likely can give us the reference as to what that grammar prefers.