--> As I found it, I want to keep it. (i.e. I want to keep it the state in which I found it.)

Is the following an appropriate way to translate the above sentence? Is the meaning clear?

Kia mi trovis ĝin, tia mi volas konservi ĝin.

The predicative always unnerves me a little bit whenever it does not follow the object, because it is not marked differently from the subject and can thus be interpreted as modifying the subject.

So, I tend to think the above translation is OK.

But what if we replace the pronoun with another noun?

--> As man found it, he wants to keep it. (i.e. Man wants to keep it the state in which he found it.)

The analogous translation suddenly seems poor:

Kia homaro trovis ĝin, tia ĝi volas konservi ĝin.

Now the intuition is that kia modifies homaro, which is incorrect. What do we do here? Reorder the sentence?

This is where Volapuk's predicative case could have been handy ...

Tempodivalse:--> As I found it, I want to keep it. (i.e. I want to keep it the state in which I found it.)

Is the following an appropriate way to translate the above sentence? Is the meaning clear?

Kia mi trovis ĝin, tia mi volas konservi ĝin.

Yes, but I think you need to use the accusative? Maybe? Because kia refers to the object of the phrase, not the subject.

Kian mi trovis ĝin, tian mi volas konservi ĝin.

I didn't think of that right away, but it seems logical given your next example.

Tempodivalse:But what if we replace the pronoun with another noun?

--> As man found it, he wants to keep it. (i.e. Man wants to keep it the state in which he found it.)

The analogous translation suddenly seems poor:

Kia homaro trovis ĝin, tia ĝi volas konservi ĝin.

Now the intuition is that kia modifies homaro, which is incorrect. What do we do here? Reorder the sentence?

Do...

Kian hom(ar)o trovis ĝin, tian li/ili/ĝi volas konservi ĝin.

(Using ĝi with homaro seems really strange to me.)

jefusan:

Tempodivalse:--> As I found it, I want to keep it. (i.e. I want to keep it the state in which I found it.)

Is the following an appropriate way to translate the above sentence? Is the meaning clear?

Kia mi trovis ĝin, tia mi volas konservi ĝin.

Yes, but I think you need to use the accusative? Maybe? Because kia refers to the object of the phrase, not the subject.

Kian mi trovis ĝin, tian mi volas konservi ĝin.

I didn't think of that right away, but it seems logical given your next example.

Tempodivalse:But what if we replace the pronoun with another noun?

--> As man found it, he wants to keep it. (i.e. Man wants to keep it the state in which he found it.)

The analogous translation suddenly seems poor:

Kia homaro trovis ĝin, tia ĝi volas konservi ĝin.

Now the intuition is that kia modifies homaro, which is incorrect. What do we do here? Reorder the sentence?

Do...

Kian hom(ar)o trovis ĝin, tian li/ili/ĝi volas konservi ĝin.

(Using ĝi with homaro seems really strange to me.)

Predicatives (predicate nouns) are never in accusative. Mi farbis la domon blua. Mi trovis gxin tia.

Tempodivalse:Kia homaro trovis ĝin, tia ĝi volas konservi ĝin.

Now the intuition is that kia modifies homaro, which is incorrect. What do we do here? Reorder the sentence?

Reordering sounds like a good idea:

Kia ĝin trovis homaro, tia ĝin volas konservi ĝi (ili).
Homaro volas ĝin konservi tia, kia ili trovis ĝin.

Tempodivalse:Is the following an appropriate way to translate the above sentence? Is the meaning clear?

Kia mi trovis ĝin, tia mi volas konservi ĝin.

Seems perfectly fine to me.

Tempodivalse:The analogous translation suddenly seems poor:

Kia homaro trovis ĝin, tia ĝi volas konservi ĝin.

Now the intuition is that kia modifies homaro, which is incorrect. What do we do here? Reorder the sentence?

Reordering as per nornen's message looks like the best plan. However I would usually use "la homaro", and I think the addition of the article avoids the intuition that kia modifies homaro, so you may be able to avoid changing the word order. Perhaps another solution would be to use 'kiel' instead of 'kia'.

jefusan:Yes, but I think you need to use the accusative? Maybe? Because kia refers to the object of the phrase, not the subject.

I want a predicative, though, which is marked by the nominative case in Esperanto. There is normally a significant difference.

In Slavic languages you mark the predicative with a non-nominative case, so there is no possibility of confusion in cases like Kia homaro trovis...

nornen:Reordering sounds like a good idea:

Kia ĝin trovis homaro, tia ĝin volas konservi ĝi (ili).
Homaro volas ĝin konservi tia, kia ili trovis ĝin.

Yes, in retrospect this was the obvious choice.

I guess the more general issue here is how to fit predicatives into complex sentences that don't follow the textbook pattern of Subject-Verb-Object-Predicative.

tommjames:However I would usually use "la homaro", and I think the addition of the article avoids the intuition that kia modifies homaro, so you may be able to avoid changing the word order.

Ah yes, la homaro... Good catch. The definite article still gives me trouble sometimes - usage is so inconsistent. I guess it is often best to use it the French way.

Perhaps another solution would be to use 'kiel' instead of 'kia'.

I thought of that, but then worried that one might interpret the sentence as meaning the manner in which it was found, rather than the condition it was found in.

On the other hand, we don't have this compunction when asking, Kiel vi nomighas?

Nornen:never in accusative

Sometimes trovi is used in a estimating sense (taksado), and sometimes trovi is used in a locating sense.

Mi trovis la libron interesa
Ĉiu trovos ion interesan en ĉi tiu libro.

In Temp's sentence we are clearly talking about as it was when he found it (malkovri).

So why not gardi ĝin, kian mi trovis ĝin?

From la Tekstaro:

Post mallonga tempo alvenas du havenaj soldatoj, tiregantaj individuon, kiun ili trovis duonvivan pro malsobraĵo en ia drinkejo

Now it wasn't the soldiers opinion. They just found him in a half-dead state.

sudanglo:Sometimes trovi is used in a estimating sense (taksado), and sometimes trovi is used in a locating sense.

I think the question would be whether the benefit of using the accusative to distinguish between a 'taksa trovo' and a 'stata trovo' is worth it, given that this form tends to grate on people's lingvosento, despite being justifiable grammatically.

In tempo's phrase I'm not sure there's much clarity to be lost, even if the reader assumed the "trovo" was one of opinion rather than actual state, because the follow up phrase "tia mi volas konservi ĝin" can only be read as maintaining the trovaĵo's actual state, and this state would be assumed to match the opinion. I think personally I would avoid the accusative in this particular phrase, though I can't see any reason to prohibit it.

tommjames:I'm not sure there's much clarity to be lost, even if the reader assumed the "trovo" was one of opinion rather than actual state, because the follow up phrase "tia mi volas konservi ĝin" can only be read as maintaining the trovaĵo's actual state, and this state would be assumed to match the opinion.

Hmm, actually I just noticed that what I said there doesn't make sense, because maintaining something in the state you consider it to be in is not the same thing as maintaining it in the state it actually was in to begin with. So maybe the accusative is useful here after all.