Tempodivalse:A lot of sundry features of English syntax which native speakers take for granted are really not intuitive to (say) a Romance or Slavic speaker. For example, the tendency to drop words or insert new clauses in a non-obvious way - "This needs [to be] done", "I think [that] it's funny", etc.

I couldn't agree more. If we argue, that because item X is standard in English and easily understood in English, this item X is also valid and easily understandable Esperanto, we will be speaking (the already quite common) English-with-Esperanto-inflection and not Esperanto proper.

I can believe that for an English native speaker (or a native speaker of any language) --worse if he is not fluent in any other languge-- it is hard to imagine that the most basic English structures might be really hard to understand for foreigners. That's why learning English takes so long. You have to study all those "sundry features". Do we really want Esperanto to be the same?

For instance, "She was given a book" is as simple as it can get in English, but it is really a puzzler for speakers of languages which don't allow for oblique (or dative) objects to be passivized. Actually English is the only language I know which can passives obliques (not sure about the scandinavian ones).

The meaning of "Ŝi estis donita libron" (She was given a book) or "Ni atendis ilin alveni" (We waited for them to arrive) is not clear unless you speak English and translate the Esperanto back to English.

Every language can relativize (kiujn) different phrases. The fact that something can be relativized in English, does not imply that the same thing can be done in Esperanto. We don't need to analyse English, we should analyse the Fundament and Z's usage.

Every language can passivize (esti farita) different phrases. English oblique passives don't make "Ŝi estis donita libron" proper Esperanto.

Let's not try to imitate our native languages and let's not use our native languages for trying to guess whether a certain item in Esperanto is valid, good and proper.

nornen:Let's not try to imitate our native languages and let's not use our native languages for trying to guess whether a certain item in Esperanto is valid, good and proper.

I don't think it's necessarily a case of trying to imitate English, or basing decisions about correct Esperanto usage on English norms.

Sudanglo gave the example of "mi vidis ŝin trinki du glasojn da vino", a perfectly valid and normal form in Esperanto, yet this phrase poses the same level of technical ambiguity as the one under discussion. Context renders the above phrase clear (glasses don't drink humans), but that won't always be the case. What about "Mi vidis lin mortigi du homojn"? This also strikes me as a normal phrase in Esperanto, yet one could argue there is ambiguity about who killed whom.

Or are we now saying that "Mi vidis lin mortigi du homojn" is also a malbona anglaĵo?

tommjames:

nornen:Let's not try to imitate our native languages and let's not use our native languages for trying to guess whether a certain item in Esperanto is valid, good and proper.

I don't think it's necessarily a case of trying to imitate English, or basing decisions about correct Esperanto usage on English norms.

Sudanglo gave the example of "mi vidis ŝin trinki du glasojn da vino", a perfectly valid and normal form in Esperanto, yet this phrase poses the same level of technical ambiguity as the one under discussion. Context renders the above phrase clear (glasses don't drink humans), but that won't always be the case. What about "Mi vidis lin mortigi du homojn"? This also strikes me as a normal phrase in Esperanto, yet one could argue there is ambiguity about who killed whom.

Or are we now saying that "Mi vidis lin mortigi du homojn" is also a malbona anglaĵo?

Sorry, I didn't manage to express myself. My intention was: A native language should never be the base for judging Esperanto. We should try not to imitate our native languages, but in case of doubt search the Fundament.

And as you already mentioned, we should avoid ambiguities like "La homo, kiun mi vidis lin mortigi, estis policistio." Here I personally wouldn't want to hazard a guess about who killed whom. If we used national languages as a base of analysis, I would argue that in German the object must precede the infinitive, and hence the killer was the police-man. I think complex relative clauses are indeed ambiguous and should be avoided.

Nor did I doubt that "Mi vidis ŝin trinki du glasojn da vino" was proper Esperanto. My doubt was, whether we should pull in Esperanto a relative pronoun through another subclause while wh-fronting it, as in "la glasoj, kiujn mi vidis ŝin trinki". Or as in "La deziro, kun kiu mi rigardis ŝin trinkantan vinon".

nornen:Nor did I doubt that "Mi vidis ŝin trinki du glasojn da vino" was proper Esperanto. My doubt was, whether we should pull in Esperanto a relative pronoun through another subclause

Ok, but the point is, if "Mi vidis ŝin trinki du glasojn da vino" is proper Esperanto despite the subject/object ambiguity (better exemplified with "Mi vidis lin mortigi du homojn" ), and we're going to say that phrases of this type are acceptable, then why say otherwise of the example with the complex relative clause?

If "kiujn mi vidis lin mortigi" is to be avoided on the grounds of ambiguity, then why not say the same of "Mi vidis lin mortigi du homojn"?

The only justification I can think of for that is the fact the latter phrase may have more parallel in national languages and thus be more familiar to speakers - but then that violates the rule of not basing correct Esperanto on the norms of other languages.

"La homo, kiun mi vidis lin mortigi, estis policisto."

Interestingly, my first reaction upon reading this was that the policeman did the killing - despite my not knowing German or another V2 language. Reading it a second time I sense the ambiguity more.

The fact that Slavic languages (or at least Russian) lack this possibility, is what throws me off.

The problem is that there is no really concise, nicely clean way to rephrase "La du glasoj da vino, kiujn mi vidis shin trinki" that I can tell - it seems you have to use a more verbose circumlocution - "La du glasoj da vino, kiujn mi vidis trinkitaj de shi" is the best I can come up with, but also sounds slightly 'clunky'. Hence my search to figure out how one expresses this in languages where these kinds of relative clauses are impermissible.

Tempodivalse:The problem is that there is no really concise, nicely clean way to rephrase "La du glasoj da vino, kiujn mi vidis shin trinki" that I can tell

Can't you just use "La du glasoj da vino, kiujn mi vidis ke ŝi trinkis"?

I suppose there is a slight difference between seeing someone drink and seeing that they drank, but it seems pretty insignificant.

tommjames:

nornen:Nor did I doubt that "Mi vidis ŝin trinki du glasojn da vino" was proper Esperanto. My doubt was, whether we should pull in Esperanto a relative pronoun through another subclause

Ok, but the point is, if "Mi vidis ŝin trinki du glasojn da vino" is proper Esperanto despite the subject/object ambiguity (better exemplified with "Mi vidis lin mortigi du homojn" ), and we're going to say that phrases of this type are acceptable, then why say otherwise of the example with the complex relative clause?

If "kiujn mi vidis lin mortigi" is to be avoided on the grounds of ambiguity, then why not say the same of "Mi vidis lin mortigi du homojn"?

The only justification I can think of for that is the fact the latter phrase may have more parallel in national languages and thus be more familiar to speakers - but then that violates the rule of not basing correct Esperanto on the norms of other languages.

The difference between (1) "Mi vidis lin mortigi du homojn" and (2) "kiujn mi vidis lin mortigi" is that, in (1) every phrase is in its place, but in (2) due to the obligatory wh-fronting either the subject or the object of "mortigi" has been moved. The movement itself is standard Esperanto. However in this case we have not moved the relative pronoun to front of its own verbal phrase (in this case a SVP), but in front of another verbal phrase, higher up in the structure. We shoved it all the way through another phrase. Some languages allow for that, others don't. So the question is, whether Esperanto is of the first group or of the latter.

(3) La glasoj, kiun_1 mi vidis, ke ŝi trinkas t_1
(4) La glasoj, kiu_2 mi vidis, ke t_2 babelemigas ŝin
(5) La servistino, al kiu_3 mi vidis, ke la reĝidino ordonis doni t_3 kukon

With (3), (4) and (5) this hurdle jumping movement is even more obvious. In (3) we grabbed the object of [ŝi trinkas] moved it all the way through another VP [mi vidis] in order to front it. Same with the subject in (4).

I am not saying that (2), (3) and (4) aren't proper Esperanto. I just don't think that these phrases are easy to parse, especially for persons from languages that are already struggling with normal relative clauses, because their language has no relative pronouns at all.

In "La homo, kiun mi vidis lin mortigi, estis policisto" the "kiujn" can be either belong to "vidis", or to "mortigi". However "vidis" is more accessible than "mortigi" as the latter is contained within the first and therefore deeper down structurally. That might be the reason, why both for Tempodivalse and for me, the first spontaneous interpretation is that the policeman was the killer, no matter whether the "lin" stands in front or behind the infinitive.

Tempodivalse:Hence my search to figure out how one expresses this in languages where these kinds of relative clauses are impermissible.

In Mayan which only allows to relativize absolutives (i.e. the subjects of intransitive verbs and the objects of transitive verbs), you would express it like this. I exchanged "talkative" with "angry", because "talkative" wouldn't be an adjective.

The wine, which I saw her drink, made her angry.

Xjosq’o’ xb’aan ruk’b’al li xb’oj naq xwil.
Pronounce: ʃxosˈqˀoʔ ʃɓaːn rukˀˈɓal li ʃɓox naq ʃwil

past-3SgAbs-ANGRY-passive 3SgErg-DOING 3SgErg-DRINK-verbalnoun det 3SgErg-WINE comp past-3SgAbs-1SgErg-SEE

she-grew-angry its-fault its-drinking the her-wine as I-saw-it.

She grew angry due to her drinking wine, as I saw.

This one is the most spontaneous version. Below two other possibilities.
----

Xjosq’o’ xb’aan li b’oj xruk’ naq xwil.

past-3SgAbs-ANGRY-passive 3SgErg-DOING det WINE past-3SgAbs-3SgErg-DRINK comp past-3SgAbs-1SgErg-SEE

she-grew-angry its-fault the wine she-drank-it as I-saw-it.

She grew angry due to the wine, which she drank, as I saw.

----

Xjosq’o’ xb’aan naq xruk’ li b’oj naq xwil.

past-3SgAbs-ANGRY-passive 3SgErg-DOING comp past-3SgAbs-3SgErg-DRINK det WINE comp past-3SgAbs-1SgErg-SEE

she-grew-angry its-fault that she-drank-it the wine as I-saw-it.

She grew angry, because she drank wine, as I saw.

----
A direct translation of "the wine made her angry" isn't possible, as inanimate things cannot be the subject of a transitive clause (ergative). That's why you must say "She grew angry due to the wine". The same holds for proto-indoeuropean, that's why in all current indoeuropean language the nominative and the accusative of neuter nouns are identical. They simply lacked a nominative and later one adopted the accusative as ersatz-nominative.

tommjames:Can't you just use "La du glasoj da vino, kiujn mi vidis ke ŝi trinkis"?

Alas, this structure doesn't work in Slavic languages either, which probably causes my discomfort. The closest you can get in Russian is by saying, literally: kiujn mi vidis, kiel ŝi trinkis (которые я видел, как она выпила - a bit wordy, but quite acceptable and unambiguous).

Actually - I think kiel might be the best (least unclear?) solution, though it seems a bit less common ...

More and more I prefer to base my Esperanto syntax choices on Slavic syntax - I find the latter to be somehow more straightforward than English or Romance and thus more suitable for an international medium.

nornen:So the question is, whether Esperanto is of the first group or of the latter.

Fair question. I have written to the Konsultejo about this so let's see what they come back with. I for one will be quite interested to know their take on it.

Here's what I emailed them, if it's of any interest:

"Tiu estas la viro, kiun mi vidis lin mortigi."

Ŝajne la ĉi-supra frazo estas ambigua (ĉu la viro mortigis lin, aŭ li mortigis la viron?), kaj ankaŭ estas fremda strukturo al pluraj lingvoj, ekzemple la slavaj. Do, ĉu ĝi estas bona kaj konsilinda Esperanto? Se ne, kiajn alternativojn ni uzu?