Oportet +subjv.

[Mulciber]

Avete, Textkitenses!

This sentence, which appeared in YLE's Nuntii Latini last year, caught my interest.

Lex antitabacaria, quam etiam curatores magnorum certaminum autocineticorum observent oportet, inde a mense Iulio anno bismillesimo quinto valere incipiet.

[My translation: The anti-tobacco law, which even the organisers of large motor-racing events must observe, will come into force from July 2005.]

A&G [section565] explains how oportet may take a subjunctive.

But does this construction have to be used when the "must" (in the English) occurs in a subordinate clause? Or would it be just as valid for them to have written

...quam etiam curatores...oportet observare...?

[whiteoctave]

If by "English 'must'" you refer to the notion of compulsion or propriety to do something, then oportet+subj and oportet+(acc)+inf. are two equally valid constructions and, pace the grammar books there does not appear to be any concrete semantic difference between the two. Certain authors seem to prefer certain constructions: for the infinitive (in the above notion of 'must') the Comedians, Cicero, Virgil and Pliny, inter alios tend to be staunch supporters; for the subjunctive Cato, Sallust, Seneca and Petronius inter alios. Livy uses both with apparent indiscrimination, and I know of at least one instance wherein Tully uses the subj (pro S.Rosc.Am.36). In terms of overall occurrences in Classical Latin, I think there would be general that (acc+) infin is the more common of the two.

~D

[Mulciber]

Gee whizz, whiteoctave, you're a walking thesaurus of Latin literature!