Three questions

[Dacicus]

1. Can inquit (and its first- and second-person forms) be used in the past tense? Wheelock gives a present translation, but in some exercises it seems to make more sense in the past.

2. Poems often have adjectives and nouns on different lines, but the English translation is awkward in such an arrangement, if even that. I think this is for metrical or rhythmical reasons in the Latin, but I find it hard/impossible to maintain anything like that when translating. Is it okay if I put these words on the same line?

3. Translating dummodo as "so long as" sounds weird. Can it be "as long as"?

Thanks for any help.

[benissimus]

1. Can inquit (and its first- and second-person forms) be used in the past tense? Wheelock gives a present translation, but in some exercises it seems to make more sense in the past.

Yes, inquit is from an irregular verb that uses the same forms for present and past. I am pretty sure it is in the perfect tense (and not the imperfect) when used like this.

2. Poems often have adjectives and nouns on different lines, but the English translation is awkward in such an arrangement, if even that. I think this is for metrical or rhythmical reasons in the Latin, but I find it hard/impossible to maintain anything like that when translating. Is it okay if I put these words on the same line?

As you will often hear people say around here, what is more important is that you preserve the meaning and expression of the passage when translating. The order is something unique to Latin and if you try to preserve it in English you are usually going to interfere with accurately translating the meaning, or you will just be creating unnecessary awkwardness.

3. Translating dummodo as "so long as" sounds weird. Can it be "as long as"?

"As long as" or "provided that" are acceptable alternatives. Wheelock was one of those old grammarians, so you don't have to follow his word choices all the time

[Dacicus]

Well this page has a conjugation of it. It seems to be in the present tense, although I cannot read the table headings.

[whiteoctave]

a note on inquit:

it is an unresolved issue whether inquit ever existed as a perfect form and it has indeed been a moot point among grammarians past and present. the nature of the verb, an apparent third conjugation, would of course provide the 3rd pers. s. form inquit, as seen in its present tense counterpart. the puzzle, however, is lamentably difficult to solve.
my theory has always been that the existence of a perfect form could be salvaged by the existence of other persons of the perfect that do not have an identical inflection to the present (i.e., 1st, 2nd s., 2nd, 3rd pl.). such examples are rare and oft dubious paleographically.
at Cat.X.27 inquii is read by some editors. MS O reads inquid, i.e. inquit, which is of little sense in the passage. Ellis (1878) writes "ceteri praeter d [of inquid] inquii Parthenius in commentario, vulgo inquio d ex interpolatione, Ald.I.Guar.Mur.Stat." such a present tense could be supported by the inquit of l.25, but indeed that could well be perfect itself. furthermore, inquo is not a happy bunny at all and is seen but extremely rarely, eclipsed almost wholly by its defective and tyrannical overlord, inquam. [incidentally, the only verbs to end in -m in latin are inquam and sum (ignoring compounds, e.g. possum), the former being of subjunctive origin].

of far more benefit, to be sure, is a pleasant little passage from our man Tully: 'Sed abeo a mimis; tantum genus huius ridiculi insigni aliqua et nota re notari volo; est autem ex hoc genere illud, quod tu, Crasse, nuper ei, qui te rogasset, num tibi molestus esset futurus, si ad te bene ante lucem venisset, "tu vero" inquisti "molestus non eris." '
the more intuitive will have no doubt noticed the 2nd s. perf. form of the anteantepenultimate word. not only are there no lectiones varii of inquisti, but ecce, mirabile visu, quae sequuntur! '"Iubebis igitur te" inquit "suscitari?" ' - our dear friend inquit.
surely it cannot be that Cicero has inexplicably leapt from the perfect to the present? immo vero, it must indeed be the perfect form.

grammarians have always been torn between two schools: οἱ μὲν ignore this Ciceronian inquisti (and the possible Catullan inquii) and states that inquit, when used in clearly past contexts, acts as a historic present form, since its postpositive nature with direct speech ineluctably adds vividity to the passage - vividness being the nectar of historic presents (e.g. OLD, L&S, Cassell's, Morford, Smith, Allen & Greenough); οἱ δὲ regard inquit as exisiting separately in the perfect but with the same inflection (owing to the unavoidable nature of the verbs morphology), arguing - so i conjecture - that the scarcity of other forms of the perfect than the 2nd s. is due to the very rare instances where one states "I/you [have] said" and then introduces direct speech, oratio obliqua being a far more appealing (and rational) alternative (e.g. Roby, Kennedy, Gildersleeve, Sloman).

Dr. Meissner, of Pembroke, Cam., informed me that inquit is often used to translate Greek η2, the defective aorist meaning "he/she/it said", which i think acts as further evidence in favour of the perfect school.

i imagine that inquit did indeed exist in the perfect but once it became defective and was so acclimatised to its postpositive position sandwiched by oratio recta that Latin writers treated it as a stock present form, analagous to the Middle English "...quoth he".

any further thoughts on this?

~D

maybe i should have posted this in a different forum?

[Episcopus]

That's a commendable note

Personally I always liked inquam. As it can either be present past or truly perfect it doesn't really matter whether inquit, inquiunt is technically perfect or present because the meaning is clear, but it's perfection has been confirmed for me But it seems that even in the present inquo has been taken out.