[quote author=Ptolemaios link=board=3;threadid=292;start=30#2348 date=1059592281]<br />Sorry, that still doesn't sound right to me. Now it says: Could he say in order that it is bad to be a zealot? Now, I'm not a native speaker of English (nor of Latin

), but that doesn't make sense, does it?<br />'Could he who would speak as a zealot be bad?' would be 'Qui zealote loquitur malus sit?' (with zealote as adverb from the newly coined adjective zealotus). I'm not sure if 'loquitur' should be indicative or subjunctive.<br /><br />Vale.<br /><br />Ptolemaios<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Well, "ut" doesn't necessarily mean "in order that". It can also mean just plain "that" or "so". (Or a whole lot of other things, but I think that typing out the whole dictionary isn't really necessary

.......) Also, without an "if" in there somewhere I'm reluctant to use a would/should, and without some form of "posse" I'm reluctant to use "could". After much grammatical soul-searching, I conclude that the problem lies in my incorrect understanding of indirect discourse, combined with some fuzzy memory that said it should be in the subjunctive tense, and a desire to translate the English "that" in the "He said that...." type of phrase. That "that" doesn't translate into Latin, so the "ut" wasn't required, and based on abrupt review, I'm now concluding that there shouldn't have been anything subjunctive in there at all...... <br /><br />This is how I turn "Qui dicat ut zealot malum sit" into something like "Who may say that a zealot may be bad". (Or "is bad"....)<br /><br />If "zealote" is an adverb, it would be "zealously", I think..... So "Qui zealote loquitur malus sit" I would translate as "Who zealously says it is bad?"<br /><br />But since I originally wanted to ask why it was assumed that being a zealot equated to something bad, I think I'm either going to have to go back to the drawing board on the sentence, or leave it be with the accusative + infinitive construction.....<br /><br />Kilmeny