Saluton, ĉiuj!

I have a question about the relative tenses in Esperanto. How would the following sentence be translated into Esperanto: "I saw a man who was angry"? At first it seems simple; I know how to say each word. However, I am uncertain if the correct translation would be

A) "Mi vidis viron, kiu estas kolera (/kiu koleras)"
B) "Mi vidis viron, kiu estis kolera (/kiu koleris)"

In English, for instance, the correct translation would be B. The reason behind this is that English uses absolute tenses, i.e. me seeing the man happened in the past and him being angry also happened in the past (both relative to the now, the present). However, since Esperanto uses relative tenses I would guess that the correct translation would be A: "Mi vidis viron, kiu (kiam mi estas vidanta lin) estas kolera (/kiu koleras)". My justification for this is that me seeing something happened in the past, ergo "mi vidis". The man being angry also happened in the past compared to now but it happened while I was seeing him which means that the time of the subclause is the same as that of the main clause, ergo "kiu estas kolera (/kiu koleras)". If the translation had been that of B, i.e. "Mi vidis viron, kiu estis kolera (/kiu koleris)" that would mean that I saw a man who was angry before I saw him.

Is this correct or is my reasoning flawed?

Chriswood:"Mi vidis viron, kiu estis kolera (/kiu koleris)" that would mean that I saw a man who was angry before I saw him.

I don't know but this is what I always thought:

I saw a man who is currently happy.
Mi vidis viron, kiu estas felicxa.

I saw a man who was happy when I saw him.
Mi vidis viron, kiu estis felicxa.

I saw a man who will be happy in the future.
Mi vidis viron, kiu estos felicxa.

The progression of tenses usually works differently when a relative pronoun is involved. You could say:

Mi vidis, ke li estas feliĉa
but...
Mi vidis viron, kiu estis feliĉa

Mi vidis, ke li estas kolera (relative tense usage)
Angle: I saw that he was happy

Mi vidis viron, kiu estis kolera (not relative)
Angle: I saw a man who was angry

Mi vidis viron, kiu jam mortis pro siaj vundoj (already dead when you saw him)

Alkanadi, it is a strange thing to say that you saw a man who is currently happy. but from the Tekstaro

sendube por fari tion ŝi havis motivojn, kiujn mi aprobas
Mi ĵus ricevis leteron, kiu sciigas min, ke ....

sudanglo:Mi vidis, ke li estas kolera (relative tense usage)
Angle: I saw that he was happy

Mi vidis viron, kiu estis kolera (not relative)
Angle: I saw a man who was angry

Mi vidis viron, kiu jam mortis pro siaj vundoj (already dead when you saw him)

Alkanadi, it is a strange thing to say that you saw a man who is currently happy. but from the Tekstaro

sendube por fari tion ŝi havis motivojn, kiujn mi aprobas
Mi ĵus ricevis leteron, kiu sciigas min, ke ....

So according to you I am wrong but according to the Tekstaro I am right? Sorry, but I am a bit confused. I have always thought Esperanto uses relative tenses only and that that is included in all subclauses, regardless of if they start with "kiu", "ke", "kie", etc.

I managed to find this extraxt from The Sixteen Rules of Esperanto Grammar (http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/rules.html) [3rd postnote]:

In Esperanto, for subordinate clauses beginning with ke ("that") and ĉu ("whether") the tense of the verb in the subordinate clause is independent of the main clause: it will always be the tense as seen by the subject of the main clause, whatever time frame that happens to be in:

Mi scias, ke li venos...
Mi sciis, ke li venos...
Mi scivolas, ĉu li venos...
Mi scivolis, ĉu li venos...
For reasons I have never figured out, the same simple rule is not followed for subordinate clauses that begin with one of the correlatives; most Esperantists use a progression of tenses like those in Western languages for these.

I don't know when he's coming...
I didn't know when he was going to come...
Mi ne scias, kiam li venos...
Mi ne sciis, kiam li estis venonta...
Still, this is not a rule, and as far as I know you are free (and will find it a lot easier) to follow the simple rule: "Use the real tense" as with ke and ĉu.

So I suppose, according to this anyway, that one actually has a choice to either A) always use relative tenses or B) only use relative tenses when the subclause starts with "ĉu" or "ke"?

sudanglo:Alkanadi, it is a strange thing to say that you saw a man who is currently happy. but from the Tekstaro

sendube por fari tion ŝi havis motivojn, kiujn mi aprobas
Mi ĵus ricevis leteron, kiu sciigas min, ke ....

Yah. It is strange. I guess it is an assumption.

After "Mi vidis" with a direct object (viron), you just describe what you saw: "Mi vidis la urbon, la arbojn, la trajnon, kaj la viron, kiu ĵus maltrafis la trajnon kaj estis kolera".

"Mi vidis la preĝejon, kiu havis tre altan turon". You could also say "Mi vidis la preĝejon, kiu havas tre altan turon", but in that case you're describing the church as it is now, not at the moment when you saw it. Think of the difference between "I saw the church which had a tall steeple" and "I saw the church which has a tall steeple".

After "Mi vidis, ke..." you go into your mind at the moment when you saw whatever was happening, so as with other forms of indirect speech you can say "Mi vidis, ke la viro estas kolera". Some people do use the past tense with words like "vidi", so usage is divided. However for indirect speech, with words like "diri", "demandi", "promesi" etc. you definitely have to use the present tense, or whatever tense would be appropriate for what you said at the time.

Chriswood:So I suppose, according to this anyway, that one actually has a choice to either A) always use relative tenses or B) only use relative tenses when the subclause starts with "ĉu" or "ke"?

I suppose that depends on whether or not you want to speak normal Esperanto. You may be "free" grammatically to use the same tense after a relative pronoun as you would after 'ke' or 'ĉu', but you will not be free in the way your sentence will usually be understood. Going against the norm here could lead to misunderstanding, so IMO it's better not to.