Adam Walker wrote:
> I happened upon
> this one sentence that made me pause:
>
> «Echa, esti junu fapu grandu pera undrari junu
> cadoligu ils cunxueduñis djils huidelis.» dichid al
> chimpeda.
>
> It parses as:
>
> already be.3rd.sg.pres one/a.masc. deed/act/fact
> great/large/big for to.honor one/a.masc Catholic
> the.neut.pl custom.pl of.the.neut.pl faithful.pl
> say.3rd.sg.past the.fem. beggar
>
> Or more smoothly,
>
> "Already it's a deed great for to.honor a Catholic the
> customs of.the faithful." said the beggar.
>
> And I translated it as:
>
> "It is already a great deed for a Catholic to honor
> the customs of the Faithful," said the beggar.
>
> What I'm wondering is, do any of you find the original
> difficult to parse?

A bit, perhaps, not that you point it out. I'm thinking that in most Romance
languages, a for-to clause with change of subject is more likely to be
introduced with que/che etc. and take the subjunctive.  Are these not
options?  For Ex. Spanish, more or less: ya es gran hecho QUE(~CUANDO, SI)
UN CATÓLICO HONRE (~HAGA HONOR A) los costumbres de los Fideles. (Not really
sure about the subjunctive, it just feels right for some reason)

 I'm considering adding the word
> "ad" meaning "to" between "cadoligu" and "ils" which
> would make:

Not sure it makes all that much difference; the difficulty IMO is the
_Prep+verb +(subj. of vb)_ sequence.  In Span. and Ital. at least, the
subject of a para/per+verb has to be be mentioned in the  intro. clause---
lo hizo para onrar a su padre 'he did it to honor his father'. Or: le dan
dinero para que viaje 'they give him money so that he may travel' ('they
give him money for travelling' would be OK too I think.) But ...para viajar
él is flat out IIRC.  OTOH Carrajena may well have gone in other directions.

> Do you think the addition of "to" marking the clause
> boundary makes thing clearer, more confused or just
> silly?
>
I don't think it helps one way or t'other...but it's up to you; as we say,
it's your conlang.....:-))))