Jen Nia Mondo, Lesson 8

Subordinate Clauses

A clause has one subject and one verb. It may or may not be a meaningful sentence by itself. A simple sentence has one main clause and nothing else; for example, "The dog chased the cat". A complex sentence has a main clause into which is embedded one or more subordinate clauses. Each clause has one subject and one verb. The subordinate clause(s) are not by themselves meaningful sentences.  In English subordinate clauses which function as adjectives are generally introduced by either 'that', 'which', or 'who'.  These words are called relative pronouns.  Other words which introduce subordinate clauses, like 'when' and 'where', are called subordinate conjunctions.

I use the following scheme of color coding to identify different sentence elements.

Black --- main clause

Red + red --- subordinate clause which has some syntactic function in the main clause (either an adjective or an adverb in the subsequent examples)

Red --- introductory relative pronoun or subordinate conjunction which plays a syntactic role in the subordinate clause

Green + red --- subordinate clause introduced by ke, which plays no syntactic role in the subordinate clause. Such a clause functions as a noun (subject, direct object, object of preposition, appositive) in the main clause.

In the following 4 examples the subordinate clause modifies the noun which it follows and functions as an adjective. The modified noun is called the antecedent. The relative pronoun in bolded red which introduces the clause plays a syntactic role in the clause, either as the subject or the object, and that pronoun refers to the same entity in the real world as the antecedent. The two simple sentences in parentheses are intended to emphasize the identity of the relative pronoun and the antecedent and the fact that within the subordinate clause the relative pronoun is a surrogate for the antecedent noun.  The relative pronoun is in the accusative case if it functions as the direct object in the subordinate clause; otherwise it is in the nominative case.

La knabino kiu loĝas ĉi tie estas Ana Pana.

The girl who lives here is Ana Pana. (that)

(La knabino estas Ana Pana. La knabino loĝas ĉi tie.)

La knabino kiun mi vidas loĝas tie.

The girl whom I see lives there. (that)

(La knabino loĝas tie. Mi vidas la knabinon.)

La hundo kiu loĝas ĉi tie manĝas multe.

The dog that lives here eats a lot. (which)

(La hundo manĝas multe. La hundo loĝas ĉi tie.)

La hundo kiun mi vidas estas tre granda.

The dog that I see is very big. (which)

(La hundo estas tre granda. Mi vidas la hundon.)

The following examples are very similar to the previous four, but the antecedent is the indefinite word 'tio'. They illustrate all 4 possibilities for the presence or absence of the accusative ending '-n'. As in English the antecedent may sometimes be omitted; for example, "That which you see . . ." = "What you see . . .". Whether it is better to omit the antecedent in a given case is a stylistic question. For the sake of clarity I do not omit the antecedent.

Tio kion vi vidas estas malgranda hundo.

That which you see is a small dog.

(Tio estas malgranda hundo. Vi vidas tion.)

Mi ankaŭ vidas tion kion vi vidas.

I also see that which you see.

(Mi ankaŭ vidas tion. Vi vidas tion.)

Tio kio estas sub la tablo estas malgranda hundo.

That which is under the table is a small dog.

(Tio estas malgranda hundo. Tio estas sub la tablo.)

Mi ankaŭ vidas tion kio estas sub la tablo.

I also see that which is under the table.

(Mi ankaŭ vidas tion. Tio estas sub la tablo.)

The relative pronouns in English corresponding to 'kiu' and 'kio' are 'who', 'which', and 'that'. English 'that' is potentially confusing because it introduces another type of subordinate clause in which it plays no syntactic role. Such clauses function as nouns in the main clause in which they are embedded. This 'that' is 'ke' in Esperanto. 'ke' is not a table word.

Mi opinias ke la libro estas malgranda.

I think that the book is small.

La virino diris ke ŝi vidis du hundojn.

The women said that she saw two dogs.

(Tion) ke ŝi vidis la hundojn oni ne povas dubi.

(The fact) that she saw the dogs one cannot doubt.

(Tio) ke ŝi vidis la hundojn helpas la esploron.

(The fact) that she saw the dogs helps the investigation.

Mi ĝojas pro tio ke vi jam manĝis.

I am happy about the fact that you have already eaten.

The words 'kie', 'kiam', 'kiom', 'kiel', and 'kia' can also introduce subordinate clauses in certain contexts. The first four introduce adverbial clauses. Antecedent 'tie' and 'tiam' are very frequently omitted. In the last 3 examples the Esperanto main clause in black can stand by itself as a sentence, although the English translation cannot, and the last English translation is syntactically different from the Esperanto sentence.

La hundo loĝas (tie) kie loĝas Ana.

The dog lives (there) where Ana lives.

Eniru la ĉambron nur (tiam) kiam la hundo dormas.

Enter the room only (then) when the dog is sleeping.

Manĝu (tiom) kiom vi volas (manĝi).

Eat as much as you want (to eat).

La kato estas tiel granda kiel malgranda hundo (estas granda).

The cat is as big as a small dog (is big).

Ni ne sukcesis aĉeti tian libron kian ni volis (aĉeti).

We did not succeed in buying the sort of book that we wanted (to buy).

Updated 2/16/2005