It is hard to imagine anything sillier than having a debate about which of "Does he know where my watch is" or "Does he know where is my watch" is correct. Why can't they both be correct? The answer is that they are both correct notwithstanding that DL has failed to recognize the latter one which correctly assumes the form of a predicate objective clause, and for which there are plenty of precedents in English.
However, I am not going to do what naomijanderson did here, that is, she made a claim that a translation is wrong without saying why it is wrong, without offering a shred of evidence, logic, or supporting argumentation. The truth is that "Does he know where is my watch" is perfectly grammatical. How do I know that I am right? While it is hard to prove the nonexistence of anything, I will give ten lingots to anyone who can correctly cite any English grammar book of widely recognized publication quality that clearly states a rule against such a predicate objective clause in the form of a question.
My confidence in not losing these lingots lies in experience. I am a native English speaker/writer who would have preferred the form "Does he know where is my watch?", a translation that danireboucas on this forum has suggested. The predicate objective clause is in the same form as a question whose answer asserts a reality. The phrase “where my watch is” presents an abstraction of position that requires knowledge, whereas an abstraction calls for pre-examination by the mind to determine whether it matches a reality. It demands two mental steps; the predicate objective form only one; hence; the latter is simpler and bears no ambiguity. DL would better accept it as well.
Do you consider the BBC 'widely recognized'?
Now, I call your bluff and ask you to present evidence, from a 'widely recognized' entity, that what you claim is correct.
Not a native either, but I know that when you have a question within the question (a.k.a. an indirect question) the word order in the second question is as in an affirmative sentence. The affirmative sentence would be "My watch is...", so the indirect question is formed by only putting a question word at the beginning: "Does he know where my watch is?"
Most native english speakers, including myself, speak english poorly, at least with respect to the correct use of grammar. The answer
"....where my watch is?"is indeed the way it would be stated by many u.s. english speakers, as opposed to what would be more correctly stated but awkward sounding to most grammatically challenged americans than the more correct .."where is my watch?"
one shouldnt end a sentence with linking verb.."is." It would be more appropriate to say "does he know the location of my watch?" But saying that would SOUND as weird as "....where is my watch?"....both of which are more correct gramatically than the typically grammaticly lazy "does he know where my watch is?"
Gielliefish is correct on the biggest differences. I'll add a few that I've found:
It's a deeper level of "knowing something" than sapere. It includes experiences and subjects (ie when you're well versed/have in depth knowledge in something).
For people it's always conoscere - even if you just met them.
More superficial & less experiential than conoscere. Factual knowledge (ex. trivia). Being informed of something (e.g. It's raining outside or I don't know what I'm eating for dinner)
This is an article from ThoughtCo.com with all the subtleties of sapere vs conoscere. This is what helps me keep them straight. https://www.thoughtco.com/italian-verbs-sapere-conoscere-2011690
That would not be correct. This is an indirect question (ie a question introduced by something else. In this case, another question) and therefore the verb goes at the end (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/flatmates/episode46/languagepoint.shtml).
You are right. In Italian, you do not change the sentence to make it a question. You just say the sentence with a question mark at the end.
"Lui sa." = He knows. "Lui sa?" = Does he know?
It's way easier than you think, don't confuse yourself :) Another example is:
"Tu mangi il cibo." =You eat the food. Ma, "Tu mangi il cibo?" is "Do you eat the food?"
dove stai = 'where are you'. I think you mean dove sta.
Well, it is not wrong but stare is a tricky verb as it is mainly used by Southern dialects and from there 'abused' in Italian .
My advice: avoid it unless you're 100% sure it's needed (ex. stare per, stare -ndo, stare bene/male)
Wonderful, the ability to learn. Whatever the mother tongue, it has rules and rhythm. Unless the learner is flexible, the ability to learn is not possible. In this Italian structure, it is simply that the interrogative appears at the end. Without feeling and hearing the relationships in any language, the learner is handicapped. I love the new sense of structure, it helps so much with the lovely music of any speech. Thank you.
True and important, RobertaLeeGerber, a lingot to you. But why? I submit that the path to knowledge is marked by examination and reflection on the evidence and reasoning behind arguments and counter-arguments of others even when thinking at first you do not agree. Galileo provided a pioneering example of that procedure in his dialogues and his lesson could arguably be better learned by the current generation, especially when the topic is language interpretation, which lies at the core of understanding others.