Textkit Logo

Ut + subjunctive / reported acc. + infinitive.

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

Ut + subjunctive / reported acc. + infinitive.

Postby pmda » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:47 pm

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.
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Ut + subjunctive / reported acc. + infinitive.

Postby adrianus » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:38 pm

2. "Coepio" vel "coepi"? Fair enough. // Licet
6. Subjunctivo modo servunt quaestiones oratione obliquâ. // Questions in reported speech take the subjunctive.
9. Et quaestio est (quae subjunctivo servit). // Another question (takes subjunctive in indirect speech)
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Ut + subjunctive / reported acc. + infinitive.

Postby Nualláin » Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:16 pm

Salve pmda,

pmda wrote:
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'.


Coepi is a defective verb, like odi for example, and has no present forms of its own -- it only appears in the perfect system. To express the same meaning in the present, you must default to incipio, incipere instead.

pmda wrote: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?

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.


As a distinct category under indirect discourse, indirect questions put the verb into the subjunctive by default (barring a few exceptions). There is a short little summary here from the University of Pennsylvania that might be helpful if your text doesn't cover it: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~struck/classe ... stion.html

Vale,

Nualláin
Nualláin
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:05 am

Re: Ut + subjunctive / reported acc. + infinitive.

Postby pmda » Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:24 pm

Adriane, gratias tibi ago.

How about this: ?

11. Quod donum Ascanius accepit ab Andromache?

Orberg narravit ut Ascanius vestem quem manibus suis confectum esset ab Andromache acciperet. - responsum meum.

[Ascanius vestem pretiosam ab Andromache accepit.] - Orbergis responsum
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Ut + subjunctive / reported acc. + infinitive.

Postby adrianus » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:11 pm

Orberg narravit Ascanium vestem quae ab Andromache confecta esset accepisse.
Orberg narravit ut Ascanius vestem quae ab Andromache confecta esset accepisset.

...nisi fallor
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Ut + subjunctive / reported acc. + infinitive.

Postby pmda » Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:59 pm

Many thanks to you all. I will study these replies carefully.
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 60 guests