I am having a hard time with more complicated sentences, verbs with indirect statements in particular, so I will lump my questions all together here:
First: the word eunti it is a form of eo/ire, but what form? eundi is the genetive of the gerund, eunt is they go, but i can't find eunti
my next question is translating the following:
Principes Gallorum dicunt se nullum consilium contra Caesaris impelium inituros esse.
The chiefs of Gaul said.....(something about) against Caesar's plan...
se nullum none of them?
inituros esse to begin to be? what form is this? future infinitive?, why does inituros end in -os instead of -us, and when does that happen, there isn't much explanation of this
impelium - from impello, to impel, how does it get to impelium?
indirect statements
-
Skylax
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: Belgium
Hello !
eunti is indeed from eo, ire : it is the present participle in the dative singular (either masculine or femine or neuter)
inire consilium means something like "make a plan" (here "against Caesar") - But check the real meaning in a dictionary.
inituros is in the plural accusative, agreeing with se referring to "the prominent men of Gaul". Yes inituros esse future infinitive
impelium is a mishap for imperium
Best regards
Skylax
eunti is indeed from eo, ire : it is the present participle in the dative singular (either masculine or femine or neuter)
inire consilium means something like "make a plan" (here "against Caesar") - But check the real meaning in a dictionary.
inituros is in the plural accusative, agreeing with se referring to "the prominent men of Gaul". Yes inituros esse future infinitive
impelium is a mishap for imperium
Best regards
Skylax
-
Episcopus
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm
eunti is the dative singular of the present participle. e.g. "Caesar eunti coronam dedit" Caesar gave a wreath to the man passing by. (i.e. 'going')
Principes Gallorum dicunt se nullum consilium contra Caesaris impelium inituros esse.
Are you sure the word is 'impelium' : 'imperium' would make sense in this sentence.
'se...inituros esse' is an indirect statement of "[nos Gallorum principes] nullum consilium contra Caesaris imperium inibimus" (or, inituri sumus)
The form "initurus, a, um" comes from the supine of "ire", the fourth principal part - 'itum' on whose stem you add -urus to make the future active participle. This is "initurus" - init[um]+urus.
Indirect statement involves a verb of saying, knowing, thinking etc., and causes the subject of the direct statement to be in the accusative and the main verb of the direct statement to be in the infinitive. Simply, if direct, "tu fortior es" --> "[dicit, cognovit, iudicat etc.]eum fortiorem esse" Notice how nominative "tu fortior" goes to acc. "eum fortiorem" and "es" goes to the infinitive "esse". Instead of saying "he says that you are stronger" it is literally "he says you to be stronger". So if we have "we, the chiefs of the Gauls will not begin any plot against the reign/empire/rule of Caesar" it is "[they, the chiefs of the Gauls, say]themselves to be about to begin no plot..." Where chiefs are doing the talking so the reflexive pronoun "se" must be used (acc.)
It's better to use a simple transitive verb like amare:
Present active infinitive amare
Present passive amari (instead of -e in the active infinitive just add a long i)
The future active infinitive is amaturus esse
Perfect Active infinitive amavisse (add -isse) to the perfect stem
Perfect Passive amatus esse
The future passive should not be worried about, use fore ut + subjunctive instead. fore = futurum esse. For example "illa amabitur" indirect: "dixit fore ut illa amaretur" lit "he said it about to be that she would be loved".
But don't be confused over this at the moment, just get the basic stuff of the way by reading D'Ooge.
Principes Gallorum dicunt se nullum consilium contra Caesaris impelium inituros esse.
Are you sure the word is 'impelium' : 'imperium' would make sense in this sentence.
'se...inituros esse' is an indirect statement of "[nos Gallorum principes] nullum consilium contra Caesaris imperium inibimus" (or, inituri sumus)
The form "initurus, a, um" comes from the supine of "ire", the fourth principal part - 'itum' on whose stem you add -urus to make the future active participle. This is "initurus" - init[um]+urus.
Indirect statement involves a verb of saying, knowing, thinking etc., and causes the subject of the direct statement to be in the accusative and the main verb of the direct statement to be in the infinitive. Simply, if direct, "tu fortior es" --> "[dicit, cognovit, iudicat etc.]eum fortiorem esse" Notice how nominative "tu fortior" goes to acc. "eum fortiorem" and "es" goes to the infinitive "esse". Instead of saying "he says that you are stronger" it is literally "he says you to be stronger". So if we have "we, the chiefs of the Gauls will not begin any plot against the reign/empire/rule of Caesar" it is "[they, the chiefs of the Gauls, say]themselves to be about to begin no plot..." Where chiefs are doing the talking so the reflexive pronoun "se" must be used (acc.)
It's better to use a simple transitive verb like amare:
Present active infinitive amare
Present passive amari (instead of -e in the active infinitive just add a long i)
The future active infinitive is amaturus esse
Perfect Active infinitive amavisse (add -isse) to the perfect stem
Perfect Passive amatus esse
The future passive should not be worried about, use fore ut + subjunctive instead. fore = futurum esse. For example "illa amabitur" indirect: "dixit fore ut illa amaretur" lit "he said it about to be that she would be loved".
But don't be confused over this at the moment, just get the basic stuff of the way by reading D'Ooge.