But those examples are not in dispute, Altebrilas.

The question is whether you can use an accusative participle after a pronoun in the way that Auld has done.

Putting it another way, is the Auld usage like the examples in the PMEG link that Tom gave, or something new?

geo63:

sudanglo:I noticed a couple of sentences in Auld's translation of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' that struck me as employing an unusual structure.

Bonŝanca pafo per mia revolvero eble lamigus lin, sed mi kunportis ĝin nur por defendi min atakatan, ne por ..

Piedsigno de la ĉashundo apudis lin kuŝantan.

Do these also strike you as unusual?

They are not strange to me because in my own language, Polish, we speak almost the same. We use accusative on both the pronoun and the participle in such situations. So for a Pole, it looks quite normal.

I just try to translate that into my German native language and later into English foreign language. Did I got it right? (The English one). The first sentence is not very different to German:

eo: Bonŝanca pafo per mia revolvero eble lamigus lin, sed mi kunportis ĝin nur por defendi min atakatan, ne por ..

de: Ein glücklicher Schuß mit meinem Revolver könnte ihn möglicherweise lahmlegen(erledigen). Aber ich trage ihn (=den Revolver) nur mit mir herum, um mich zu verteidigen, wenn ich angegriffen werde und nicht um ... (jemanden anzugreifen?).

en: If I'm lucky* I could give it an slapshoot with my revolver. But I only carry the revolver with me to defense myself in case of any attack against me and not to... (attack somebody?).

*The revolvers at this times didn't shoot very excactly.

===

Hhm, did need some semantic juggling:

eo: Piedsigno de la ĉashundo apudis lin kuŝantan

de: Die Fußspuren des Jagdhundes waren neben seinen Fußstapfen. (Wortwörtlich: Die Fußstapfen des Jagdhundes "lagen" neben seinen "daliegenden" Fußstapfen.)

en: The footprints of the bloodhound were nearby its footprints.

sudanglo:But those examples are not in dispute, Altebrilas.

The question is whether you can use an accusative participle after a pronoun in the way that Auld has done.

Putting it another way, is the Auld usage like the examples in the PMEG link that Tom gave, or something new?

It is difficult to answer that question, because PMEG gives examples rather than rules.
I'm not sure that a consistent set of rules can be drawn from these examples.
It seems a bit confusing.

I created a poll in the "questions" section to have the user's feeling about "li pentris sxin nuda"

Altebrilas:
I created a poll in the "questions" section to have the user's feeling about "li pentris sxin nuda"

eo: Li pentris ŝin nuda.

de: Er malte sie nackt.

en: He portrayed her nudely.

Hhm, why that needs such big discussion?

Altebrilas:I created a poll in the "questions" section to have the user's feeling about "li pentris ŝin nuda"

This is how I understand this sentence:

Li pentris ŝin nuda = being naked he portrayed her (he was naked)

Li pentris ŝin nudan = he portrayed her when she was naked, not him.

geo63:This is how I understand this...

That is how I understand it as well. That seems like straight-up, regular Esperanto, to me.

RiotNrrd:

geo63:This is how I understand this...

That is how I understand it as well. That seems like straight-up, regular Esperanto, to me.

Why?

Li trovis la vinon bona.

bona clarifies something related to how he found the wine, not that he is 'bona'.

Li pentris la virinon nuda.

nuda should be (analogous to the previous example) a clarification on how he painted the woman, not that he is 'nuda'.

Li pentris ŝin nuda.

this should be analogous to the previous one, but with 'la virinon' replaced by a pronoun (ŝin).

So, she painted her, and she is nude, at least in the picture.

That's what I understand.

Amike,

Daniel.

Actually, after thinking about it a bit more, I think I spoke too quickly.

Li pentris sxin nuda, I believe, means that she is nude in the picture. We don't know whether either were nude when the drawing was made, only that she is portayed thusly in the picture.

It is't as straightforward as it first seems.

(Daniel, I didn't see your post, but my thinking went along those lines.)

henma:[Why?

Li trovis la vinon bona.

bona clarifies something related to how he found the wine, not that he is 'bona'.

Li pentris la virinon nuda.

nuda should be (analogous to the previous example) a clarification on how he painted the woman, not that he is 'nuda'.

Li pentris ŝin nuda.

this should be analogous to the previous one, but with 'la virinon' replaced by a pronoun (ŝin).

So, she painted her, and she is nude, at least in the picture.

That's what I understand.

Amike,

Daniel./quote]This is just another possibility - it seems that Esperanto is imprecise in that matter (from two possibilities we choose the more probable). But the same can occur in every language (in natural languages it happens even more often):

"I saw the girl" = I did see the girl or I cut her in two with a saw (less probable though).

Li trovis la vinon bona = li trovis la vinon [ke ĝi estas] bona

Li pentris la virinon nuda = li pentris la virinon [ke ŝi estas] nuda?

What about this:

Li pentris nuda la virinon
Li pentris nude la virinon

What does PMEG say about that?

PMEG talks about the difference between "Mi farbis la domon ruĝan" (I painted the red house - it was already red and I painted it) and "Mi farbis la domon ruĝa" (I painted the house red - it was not previously red, but I made it red)

"ruĝa" doesn't refer to "mi" in either case.

This page of the PMEG discusses this topic.

I think you would have to put the adjective next to the subject in order to have it describe the subject. Therefore if I had been red when I painted the house, it would be "Mi, ruĝa, farbis la domon"

(which brings us back to the original "using an adjective to describe a pronoun")

I'm not too bothered by this whole topic of adjectives describing pronouns, but for those of you with a deep interest in it, perhaps you could send in the Academy of Esperanto's question/answer service.