"Li postulis, ke mi informu lin pri ĉio."
Translation:He demanded that I inform him about everything.
I'm confused again as to why were using the command form. I would have expected a subjunctive.
In the Notes for this section, it says that the imperative in Esperanto acts very similarly to how we would use the subjunctive in English in a ke/that clause.
We also use the -u ending in subordinate phrases (clauses) starting with ke, when the verb in the preceding, main part of the sentence expresses a want, desire, demand or preference:
I wish the notes were available on the Android app. Salivanto explained it to me shortly after I asked. It makes sense now. Zamenhof combined the two moods (imperative & subjunctive) since the latter was often used to express polite versions of the former. No doubt this was to cut down on confusion for learners of all language backgrounds.
I completely agree! I keep finding myself having to be sure to use my PC when I start a new subject so that I can read the Tips & Notes. Often, I'd much prefer to just keep using my phone.
Zamenhof combined the two moods (imperative subjunctive) since the latter was often used to express polite versions of the former. No doubt this was to cut down on confusion for learners of all language backgrounds.
Wow, I've never noticed that! I've only noticed that, in my native language (Portuguese), the present subjunctive mood is exactly the same as the negative imperative mood (which is almost identical to the affirmative one). Though Zamenhof didn't know Portuguese nor Spanish, maybe other Romance languages work the same way and Zamenhof derived that from them.
The Romance languages inherited Latin's imperative, which only has 2nd person forms and not a clear structure for negatives. Late Latin also used the subjunctive for hortatory and jussive commands, so it's not surprising that those forms helped fill in missing forms.
Zamenhof may not have studied all those languages, but I can't help but think he read about their grammars.
I had the same question, but my thought was that the speaker is already talking about another person. I don't know if this is right, or not