"My uncle advised that I inform him about my sister."
Translation:Mia onklo konsilis, ke mi informu lin pri mia fratino.
Question: Since we use "lin" in this sentence, does that mean we are informing the uncle about my sister or another guy? Or should we use "sin" if we were referring to the uncle?
I can see that it's a different clause after the word "ke", so this rule may not apply. Does that mean the sentence could be ambiguously interpreted?
I though that 'sin' and 'sia' were specifically third person, thus using 'sin' or 'sia' would refer to the previously mentioned (i.e. proximate) third person rather than some fourth individual (i.e. obviative)?
Some north american languages have this feature, and in those it's referred to a fourth person, although it works a little different in those. 'Lia', 'lin', 'sxia', and 'sxin' would be considered the fourth person (obviative referent) in those languages, while 'sin' and 'sia' would be closer to their idea of the third person (proximate referent).
Yes, but reference is only within the clause. "Ke" starts a new clause. Though I suppose, if you go ahead and use sin in the second clause, since it can't refer to mi, it has to refer to the uncle, unlike lin. Would grammarians be bothered about it (and would we care)?
I had this as a multiple choice question. One of the options was identical to the accepted answer, except that it used "sciigu al *li" instead of "informu lin*". I want to make sure I know why it was incorrect.
So, I think sciigi is a synonym for informu because:
Sciigi = Sci + igi = know + to cause = to cause knowlege = to inform.
But I think that the suffix "igi" makes the verb transitive, so in order to use sciigi properly, you should say: "..., ke mi sciigu lin...." And not: "...,ke mi sciigu al li ...."
Is this correct reasoning?