Chainy:

sudanglo:Estis nur plurajn semajnon post lia decido murdi sian edzinon, ke Dr-o Bickleigh entreprenis la unuajn paŝojn.

"Nur post kelkaj semajnoj post sia decido murdi sian edzinon, entreprenis D-ro Bickleigh la unuajn paŝojn en ĉi tiu afero."

I would translate this:

Pasis kelkaj semajnoj post lia decido murdi sian edzinon ĝis Dr-o Bickleigh faris la unuajn paŝojn.

sudanglo:Should it be 'lia decido' or 'sia decido'? Here the 'Estis .. ke' makes a difference.

If you said Nur kelkajn semajnojn post ... Dr Bickleigh entreprenis' then you would have single clause sentence with Dr Bickleigh as the subject and if you saw 'decido' as being verbal you might say 'sia decido', though this would produce an ugly repetition of 'sia'.

PMEG has a note on 'si' with 'o-vortoj'

After further thought, I think it doesn't really matter if you put 'sia decido' or 'lia decido', but I would now probably go for the latter.

I couldn't find an example in PMEG that is very similar to our sentence here, where there are possibly two cases of 'sia' in one clause. But PMEG does mention a few cases where Zamenhof used 'lia' when according to the rule you'd normally expect 'sia' - he did this to make the sentence more clear.

And I think that in this case, it does indeed sound a bit better if you use 'lia decido' as this equates to 'post kiam LI decidis', in which it is only possible to use 'li' as it is the subject of the subclause:

"Nur post kelkaj semajnoj post lia decido murdi sian edzinon, entreprenis D-ro Bickleigh la unuajn paŝojn en ĉi tiu afero."

horsto:

Chainy:

sudanglo:Estis nur plurajn semajnon post lia decido murdi sian edzinon, ke Dr-o Bickleigh entreprenis la unuajn paŝojn.

"Nur post kelkaj semajnoj post sia decido murdi sian edzinon, entreprenis D-ro Bickleigh la unuajn paŝojn en ĉi tiu afero."

I would translate this:

Pasis kelkaj semajnoj post lia decido murdi sian edzinon ĝis Dr-o Bickleigh faris la unuajn paŝojn.

Yes, this could be an alternative. 'Ĝis' effectively has the same meaning as 'antaŭ ol' in this sentence. However, I have a little doubt about it somehow. Something to do with my usual practice of using 'ĝis' in the sense of getting something done before/by a particular time or doing something until a particular time and then stopping at this point, so the emphasis is on that, rather than the time following the point marked by 'ĝis'.

Example:

Mi restis, ĝis ŝi ekdormis = I stayed until she fell asleep.

- the emphasis being on the 'staying'. Whereas, in the sentence which we're trying to translate the significant factor is that Dr. B actually started to do something in terms of his plan to murder.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? Maybe this is just my personal interpretation!

Chainy, I agree with your feeling about 'ĝis'. Here I would prefer 'antaŭ ol'. Otherwise, Horst's suggestion for rephrasing is not bad.

PAG speaks of each verbal idea as compartmentalising the sentence, so that even if the subject is not explicit you apply the normal reflexive rules.

So we must talk of the 'decido murdi sian edzinon' (Dr Bickleigh is planning to murder his own wife not another's), regardless of the subject of the main verb in the sentence

That I think is quite clear and anyway not in dispute.

However, PAG goes on to say that when the subject is expressed by a possessive (eg sia/lia) then this breaks down the compartmentalisation and the use of 'sia' or 'lia' is determined by whether you are referring back to the subject of the main clause verb.

But wouldn't this assertion of PAG conflict with a sentence like 'La decido murdi sian edzinon ne venis facile al Dr. Bickleigh' where the suject of the main clause is 'La decido', but of course the perpetrator of the murdo is Dr. Bickleigh?

I was watching a BBC 4 programme on the King James translation of the Bible. I was most interested to learn that this translation was the product of a company of translators not all of whom were scholars, yet the result is esteemed by many as a majestic simplicity of language and this translation (there were many before and afterwards) has certainly had powers of endurance.

It occurred to me that my concept of collaboration on Esperanto translations for the best possible outcome finds a parallel in the production of the King James bible.

By the way, have we exhausted the opening passage of 'Malice Aforethought'.

sudanglo:By the way, have we exhausted the opening passage of 'Malice Aforethought'.

I reckon so. I suggest some non-fiction for the next one, this from 'Cooper's Creek' by Alan Moorehead:

Nothing in this strange country seemed to bear the slightest resemblance to the outside world: it was so primitive, so lacking in greenness, so silent, so old. It was not a measurable man-made antiquity, but an appearance of exhaustion and weariness in the land itself. The very leaves of the trees hung down dejectedly, and they were not so much ever-green as ever-grey, never entirely renewing themselves in the spring, never altogether falling in winter. It was the bark that fell; it dried up and cracked on the tree trunks and peeled off like the discarded skin of the snake.

Good, 3rdblade. I'll let others have a go first, before I wade in.

By the way, I have just noticed that this thread has had more than 5000 views, suggesting some disparity between the number of active contributors and the number of readers.

Can I encourage more people to join in. All contributions are of interest - even from beginners.

Nenio en tiu stranga lando ŝajnis simili la resto de l' mondo. Ja primitiva, ja verdmankema, ja silenta, kaj praa. Tio ne estis mezurebla, homfarita anitkveco, sed apero de elĉirpiteco kaj laceco de la lando mem. Ja la folioj de la arboj pendis malĝoje, kaj ne estis vere ĉiam-verda kiel ĉiam-griza, ne tute renoviĝadas printempe, ne tute faladas vintre. Jen l' arboŝelo forfalis; ĝi sekiĝas kaj malkroĉiĝas, kiel la forĵetita haŭto de la serpento.

I reckon so. I suggest some non-fiction for the next one, this from 'Cooper's Creek' by Alan Moorehead:

Nothing in this strange country seemed to bear the slightest resemblance to the outside world: it was so primitive, so lacking in greenness, so silent, so old. It was not a measurable man-made antiquity, but an appearance of exhaustion and weariness in the land itself. The very leaves of the trees hung down dejectedly, and they were not so much ever-green as ever-grey, never entirely renewing themselves in the spring, never altogether falling in winter. It was the bark that fell; it dried up and cracked on the tree trunks and peeled off like the discarded skin of the snake.

Nenio fremlande sentigis eĉ aspektete tiel la alia mondo: ĝi estis kia praa, kia senverda, kia sensona, kia malnova. Ĝi estis ne mezurebla homfarita antikvaĵo, sed sinmontro ĉe malenergieco kaj lacegeco en lando mem. Folioj de arboj pendigas malĝue, kaj ili estis verdada, sed grizada, neniam tute denoviĝis dum la printempo, neniam tute falis dum vintro. Arboŝelo ja falis; ĝi malsekiĝis kaj fendiĝis sur la arbtrunkoj kaj forŝeliĝisis kvazaŭ forĵetita haŭto de la serpento.

Did I overuse iĝ-verbs?
I also wasn't sure about how to translate "they were not so much ever-green as ever-grey".