You hear him say something to himself

or

You hear that he says something to himself?

Thank you.

Francisko1:You hear him say something to himself

or

You hear that he says something to himself?

Thank you.

I prefer the first sentence because it is shorter. However, both sentences are correct.

Francisko1:You hear him say something to himself

or

You hear that he says something to himself?

Both are fine. "You hear that he says something to himself" would historically be more correct, but now English is so reduced that you can get "You hear him" and add "say something to himself" to the end and it somehow makes sense .

In a modern setting, "You hear that he says something to himself" would imply that you heard it being said, or you heard evidence that he said something to himself. So someone could have told someone else "Hey, this guy said something to himself", and then "You hear that he says something to himself" makes more sense.

If you heard him directly, and you actually heard the action of person speaking to themselves, then "You hear him say something to himself" is more correct. This is because, now, you heard the noise the man made, and you didn't just hear someone say that he was talking to himself.

---

Ambaŭ estas bonaj. "You hear that he says something to himself" estus historie pli ĝusta, sed nun la Angla lingvo estas pli reduktita, tial vi povas uzi "You hear him" (Vi aŭdas lin) kaj kunigi "say something to himself" (diras ion al sin) al la fino de la frazo, kaj strange, malgraŭ la nenorma uzo de la vorto "say", la nova frazo nun estas komprenebla.

En moderna okazejo, "You hear that he says something to himself" signifus ke vi aŭdis ulon kiu diris tiun ĉi fakton aŭ simile. Do, iu povus diri "Hej, tiu ĉi ulo diris ion sien" al alia plu, kaj tiuokaze "You hear that he says something to himself" estas pli komprenebla.

Se vi aŭdis lin rekte, kaj vi efektive aŭdis la agon de la ulo kiu diras al si, tiuokaze "You hear him say something to himself" estas pli gŭsta. Tio estas ĉar, nun, vi aŭdis la realan sonon kiu la homo faris, kaj vi ne nur aŭdis iun kiu diris ke la homo parolis al si.

(sorry if the EO is bad).

How would Esperanto differentiate these two I wonder?
"Vi aŭdis ke la homo parolas al si" and "Vi aŭdis la homon kiu parolas al si"?

ceigered:

Francisko1:You hear him say something to himself

or

You hear that he says something to himself?

Both are fine. "You hear that he says something to himself" would historically be more correct, but now English is so reduced that you can get "You hear him" and add "say something to himself" to the end and it somehow makes sense .

In a modern setting, "You hear that he says something to himself" would imply that you heard it being said, or you heard evidence that he said something to himself. So someone could have told someone else "Hey, this guy said something to himself", and then "You hear that he says something to himself" makes more sense.

If you heard him directly, and you actually heard the action of person speaking to themselves, then "You hear him say something to himself" is more correct. This is because, now, you heard the noise the man made, and you didn't just hear someone say that he was talking to himself.

---

Ambaŭ estas bonaj. "You hear that he says something to himself" estus historie pli ĝusta, sed nun la Angla lingvo estas pli reduktita, tial vi povas uzi "You hear him" (Vi aŭdas lin) kaj kunigi "say something to himself" (diras ion al sin) al la fino de la frazo, kaj strange, malgraŭ la nenorma uzo de la vorto "say", la nova frazo nun estas komprenebla.

En moderna okazejo, "You hear that he says something to himself" signifus ke vi aŭdis ulon kiu diris tiun ĉi fakton aŭ simile. Do, iu povus diri "Hej, tiu ĉi ulo diris ion sien" al alia plu, kaj tiuokaze "You hear that he says something to himself" estas pli komprenebla.

Se vi aŭdis lin rekte, kaj vi efektive aŭdis la agon de la ulo kiu diras al si, tiuokaze "You hear him say something to himself" estas pli gŭsta. Tio estas ĉar, nun, vi aŭdis la realan sonon kiu la homo faris, kaj vi ne nur aŭdis iun kiu diris ke la homo parolis al si.

(sorry if the EO is bad).

How would Esperanto differentiate these two I wonder?
"Vi aŭdis ke la homo parolas al si" and "Vi aŭdis la homon kiu parolas al si"?

Mi komprenas ke ambaux frazoj estas bonaj, malsamaj kaj ambaux estas tutbone kompreneblaj. Tamen mi preferas aldoni la vorton mem: "...parolas al si mem", kvankam gxi ne necesas, cxar tiel la komprenado estas ecx pli bona. Cia esperanto estas tutbone komprenebla kaj bona. Dankon pro cia respondo.

Francisko1:Tamen mi preferas aldoni la vorton mem: "...parolas al si mem", kvankam ĝi ne necesas, ĉar tiel la komprenado estas eĉ pli bona.

Tio estas tute bona kaj akceptebla en la Angla, tial mi ne vidas iun ajn problemon
---
That's completely OK in English so I don't see any problem in doing so

(Kaj dankon pro la komplimento )

ceigered:

Francisko1:You hear him say something to himself

or

You hear that he says something to himself?

Both are fine. "You hear that he says something to himself" would historically be more correct, but now English is so reduced that you can get "You hear him" and add "say something to himself" to the end and it somehow makes sense .

Actually you hear him say something to himself is an "accusativus cum infinitivo" as it exists in Latin (audes eum dicere sibi ullum or something like that?). I wouldn't say that a construction Latin has but the Romance languages mostly abolished is "reduced".

Serious? That's kind of cool, is it a pan Germanic thing too? (e.g. in German? Or if anyone knows Proto-Germanic )

ceigered:Serious? That's kind of cool, is it a pan Germanic thing too? (e.g. in German? Or if anyone knows Proto-Germanic )

German uses it only with very few expressions, such as of hearing and seeing. Thus, ich höre dich kommen (I hear you come) is correct, but you couldn't translate the English "I want you to do that" as *ich will dich, das zu tun. You have to use "I want that you do that" = ich will, dass du das tust.