I have found Exercitium 5 Cap XXXVIII in LLPSI Pars II confusing in parts. Now I recall from Book 1 of LLPSI about indirect speech and subjunctive tense. Accusative + infinitive and where an 'ut' clause is used then ut + subjunctive. But I'm unclear about some of what follows.
My problem may be partly due to the fact that Orberg uses single quotation marks for a reported event: something which in English is never done. In other words.
John said that he saw the man on the street
would in Orberg's style be
John said that 'he saw the man on the street'.
I don't know whether this is a continental / Scandinavian thing because I've never seen this in English. I guess I find this distracting.
In any case, here's the exercise and the correct answers. I'll give my own view as to what's going on with the choice of tenses and persons but I'd be grateful for any pointers from the learned members of Textkit. I provide (Orberg's) correct answers in square brackets [ ].
1. Augustus: "Urbem marmoream relinq[o]." August dixit '[se] urbem marmoream relinqu[ere].
This seems simple enough. The present infinitive 'relinquere' agrees with the present tense of the original quote.
2. Nero: "Quasi homo tandem habitare coep[i]!" Nero dixit '[se] quasi homin[em] tandem habitare coep[isse]!
Well, ok, but I don't know how I was supposed to guess 'coepi'. Why would I assume Nero would speak in the perfect tense. I would have put 'coepio' and had him speak in the present and I would have had 'coepere' and not 'coepisse'.
Which begs the question: what's the relationship between the second sentence in Orberg's exercise and the first? Do I assume it must be 'coepi' because the next sentence begins 'Nero dixit'?
3. Laocoon: "Tim[eo] Danaos..." Laocoon dixit '[se] Danaos tim[ere]' / 'Dana[os] a [se] tim[eri].
OK...the persent infinitive 'timere' agrees with the tense of 'Timeo'. Also 'Danaos a se timeri'? seems to beg a nominative 'Danai' until I remember that it's reported speech so it's accusative. 'Se' here is presumably ablative and 'timeri' is present infinitive passive.
4. Aeneas: "Patrem meum portabo, nec mihi grave erit hoc onus." Aeneas dixit '[se] patrem [suum] Port[aturum] [esse], nec [sibi] grave [fore] id onus.
This seems OK no problem understanding this.
5. Aeneas: "Filium meum mecum ducam." Aeneas dixit '[se] filium [suum] [se]cum duct[urum] [esse].'
This seems OK.
6. Aeneas: "Ubi est uxor mea? Cur me non sequitur?" Aeneas interrogavit 'ubi [esset] uxor [sua]? cur [se] non sequ[eretur].
This is where I get lost. First off. Why is the reported speech 'ubi esset....' not in the infinitive like all the other examples? Why not: Aeneas interrogavit 'Ubi fuisse uxorem suam? Cur se non secuta esse.'
Instead the entire solution is simply to convert it to imperfect subjunctive. Why?
7. Andromache: "Dic mihi Hector meus ubi est?" Andromache Aeneam oravit ut [sibi] dic[eret] ubi Hector [suus] [esset].
It's 'ut' followed by subjunctive. But that doesn't explain the use of subjunctive in 6. above. There's no 'ut' there - only indirect speech.
8. Andromache: "Ego et Helenus in Epirum abduti sumus; postea vero Helenus Chaonia potitus est et me uxorem duxit." Andromache narravit '[se] et Helen[um] in Epirum abduct[os] [esse]; postea vero Helen[um] Chaonia potit[um] [esse] et [se] uxorem [duxisse].
...no 'ut', no subjunctive, lots of infinitive. Seems to make sense.
9. Aeneas: "Quae pericula mihi vitanda sunt"? Aeneas ab Heleno quaesivit 'quae pericula [sibi] vitanda [essent]?'
- why subjunctive 'essent' and not infinitive 'fuisse'?
The original sentence is not subjunctive and I can't figure out why it becomes subjunctive when it's reported but wihtout the 'ut' clause.
10. Aeneas: "Di immortales! Servate me et socios meos!' Aeneas orat ut di immportales [se] et socios [suos] serv[ent].
Use of 'ut' + subjunctive makes sense....
I'd be grateful for any guidance.
