"Did he tell the police that he was guilty?"
Translation:Ĉu li diris al la polico, ke li estas kulpa?
In Esperanto the verb in indirect speech has the same tense as it would have in direct speech.
Here you would say directly: “Ĉu li diris al la polico: ‘Mi estas kulpa.’?”, therefore you must use the present tense in indirect speech: “Ĉu li diris al la polico, ke li estas kulpa?”.
You would get ‘estu’ only when it is a wish or demand or similar. For instance: “Mi deziras, ke vi estu diligenta.”; Directly you would say: “Mi deziras: vi estu diligenta.”.
ActualGoat, that is not definite from the sentence. He conceivably could've been telling the police he was guilty of being a harsh parent to his children, but has since made amends. Of course, your interpretation would be more natural, but it should not be considered exclusive. Right?
I don't really understand what your English sentence is supposed to mean, so I cannot translate it.
Maybe have a look at this site: https://www.studyandexam.com/indirect-speech-for-tense.html
It explains how the English verb in the dependent clause changes for the indirect (reported) speech when the main clause is in the past (they / she / he said / told). There is no case in the list where the present is used in the dependent clause.
Note to self: Why "Ĉu li diris la polico ke li estis kulpa?" was marked wrong: ^al [^^estas] In salivanto's video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3MqOXULZb4&feature=youtu.be&t=8m32s at 09:38 to 10:06 into the video, it is explained with the following chart:
He said (that) he was waiting for his suitcase. Li diris, ke li atendas sian valizon.
09:38 . Indirect, we would say: "He said that he was waiting for his suitcase ." Notice that the words that came out of his mouth were, "I am waiting for my suitcase; but when we talk about it indirectly like that, we change it to "was waiting."
This is it in English: "He said that he was waiting for his suitcase," but in Esperanto you don't change it. So, it's the same whether it's direct quote or indirect quote: "Li diris, ke li atendas sian valizon." Thank you, salivanto.
Because si is a reflexive pronoun. That means that it refers back to the subject. Whence it cannot be part of the subject of any sentence. One should understand from the sentence that it is his own guilt he is confessing. (You don't really confess someone else's guilt anyway, but you rather report them etc.)
In the subordinate clause ke si estas kulpa, si is the subject. As I mentioned, si cannot be the subject, as it refers back to the subject. It never happens that si refers back a subject of another clause. So it does not refer back to li in the main clause Ĉu li diris al la polico?. Therefore, one must use li as a subject in the subordinate clause and so your sentence with si should not be accepted and is grammatically incorrect. Hopefully this clears things up :).
I fully agree but I just was marked for a "typo" -- the answer should be "diris la policon." My answer was "Cxu li diris al la polico, ke li estas kulpa." I used "Cxu" as a substitute for the supersigno, and it was underlined as a typo, too.
I keep noticing that DL accepts x instead of supersignoj only if the base letter is lower case, so not at the beginning of a sentence. Yes, I realize that x-alternatives need to be entered manually by the contributors. A great thank you to them.
However, a (missing?) accusative would not be a typo but a blatant error.
Is this sentence potentially ambiguous as to who he is saying is guilty? Could it be that he (a suposed criminal) is telling the police that he himself (the criminal) is guilty? Or could it be that he (a judge perhaps) is telling a police officer the he (the officer) is guilty? According to others, the pronoun "si" can not be used here to clear up ambiguity. I guess it just depends on context?
I think the Esperanto sentence is precisely as ambiguous as the English one. It's simply a translation. I would not use “he” / “li” twice in this sentence to mean different persons so for me it is not ambiguous. For other people it might be. But that's not a question of the translation.
Grammatically it is indeed ambigous, but as Renardo_11 points out, you would not use li twice like this if it weren't clear it was about the same person (or when the context clearly shows that they are indeed not the same). To clear up ambiguity, you can use li mem for the second instance to mean himself, or use tiu to refer to someone else, that was mentioned earlier.
I see, I guess it makes sense that the English equivalent is just as ambiguous. I find it interesting how in many cases Esperanto seems to make such an effort to clear up ambiguity with "si/sia", but in some cases it's not considered correct, and the ambiguity remains. Not complaining, just an observation. Ambiguity is a common and natural thing in most languages.
Exactly, ambiguity is normal in human languages; Esperanto is not Loglan/Lojban but just does its best to be easy to learn. In order to avoid the mentioned ambiguity one could say:
- Did he declare himself / him guilty…
- Ĉu li deklaris sin / lin kulpa…
In fact I would consider it a restriction on Esperanto's capabilities if it could not form ambiguous sentences. ☻