"He wants me to receive his letter."
Translation:Li deziras, ke mi ricevu lian leteron.
Umm, isn't "sian leteron" wrong (I would think lian leteron)? Because I learned that si/a can only refer to the subject of its own clause (i.e. can't cross the boundaries of a clause, thus shouldn't refer to the li, which is in a different clause). Or is it acceptable because the subject in its own clause is mi (which obviously can't be referred to by sia)? Someone clear this up for me, please :)
I agree. It seems to me "Li deziras, ke mi ricevu sian leteron" would mean "He wants me to receive my own letter." If that's not the case, it would be helpful for the lesson to clarify why - maybe give it as an example in the notes, etc.
Actually, I think "sia" works in the same way as "autos" in ancient Greek -- not helpful I know, but let me explain what I mean.
Maybe "sia" can mean "his own/her own/my own/their own", depending on the context.
It would make sense then, that both "sian leteron" and "lian leteron" are acceptable responses, because, although "sian leteron" is more explicit ("lian" could also mean "his" referring to another male person that is not the subject of deziri), a word like sia working the way I have described is tricky for English speakers, and since the purpose of Esperanto is ease of learning over "absolute unmistakable precision" (an impossible goal for any communication), allowing both to translate "his own" keeps the language practical and flexible.
Yes, "sian leteron" is wrong (probably that's why the sentence says "lian leteron" now). PMEG explains: http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/pronomoj/si/kompleksaj_frazoj.html#i-6ah
La ĉefverbo de subfrazo havas propran subjekton. Se oni uzas si aŭ sia en subfrazo, ĝi reprezentu ĉiam la subjekton de la subfrazo, neniam la subjekton de la ĉeffrazo (translation: The main verb of the subordinate clause has its own subject. If you use si or sia in a subordinate clause, it always has to mean the subject of the subordinate clause, never the subject of the main clause)
I don't understand this either. The information given in the lessons is unclear.
I swapped the imperatives. I Used "volu" and "ricevi". What did I say, then?
"Akcepti" is more active, along the lines of "to accept" (i.e. to acknowledge or accept someone/thing). "Ni akceptas vin kiel vi estas," "We accept you as you are."
"Ricevi" is more passive, "to receive" (i.e. to receive a package). "Mi ricevis vian pakaĵon," "I received your package."
ReVo isn't incredibly clear differentiating between the two, but that's how I've seen it in common usage.