The money or the wife? Unit 9 Ex. 1

[phil96]

19. Eō diē mihi dīxit sē audīvisse fēminam altiōre vōce clāmentem satis sibi pecūniae nōn esse ut Rōmam sine morā īret; proximō autem diē sē invenīre eam nōn posse.

I'm having nesting issues with the second part. Everything seems fine up to the semi-colon.
"On that day he told me he had heard his wife shouting in a rather loud voice that she did not have enough money to go to Rome straight away;"

Thereafter is it:
(a) [he said further] "moreover, he was not able to find any (money) by the next day." or
(b) [he heard her saying further] "moreover, she was not able to find any by the next day." or
(c) [the report of the provincial gendarme in Gaul continues ] (he said that) "however, on the next day he was unable to find her."

If it is (c) can the first part be translated "He told me he had heard ......shouting.... on that day, but on the next day.....". In other words, does Latin have flexibility in positioning the main verb governing the indirect "speech", so that it doesn't have to come first, or outside the "speech"?

[Damoetas]

Yes: in fact Latin does allow the verb of saying (especially dico) to be placed inside the accusative-and-infinitive clause. Here's an example from one of Cicero's letters:

Cum φιλοφρόνως ex eo quaererem quid opus esset, Atticum se dixit quaerere.
'And when I asked him in a friendly way what I could do for him, he replied that he was looking for Atticus’ (Cic. Att. 15.15.2).

In your example from M&F, it makes sense that Eo die is preposed because it contrasts with proximo autem die in the next clause. And since no change of subject is marked, we can conclude that se remains the subject throughout, and eam refers to the femina. (Which could mean 'woman' rather than 'wife' in this context.)

[phil96]

Thank you.

And since no change of subject is marked, we can conclude that se remains the subject throughout, and eam refers to the femina.

How might a change in the subject be indicated? For instance if it were (b), "He told me that he had heard his wife shouting in a rather loud voice that she did not have enough money to go to Rome straight away; and that she was not able to find any by the next day."? Because this is a sentence with nested indirect statement, wouldn't "she" also be "se" in the inner context?

As a side-note, do Cicero and others of the time often pepper their writing with greek words?

[Damoetas]

How might a change in the subject be indicated? For instance if it were (b), "He told me that he had heard his wife shouting in a rather loud voice that she did not have enough money to go to Rome straight away; and that she was not able to find any by the next day."? Because this is a sentence with nested indirect statement, wouldn't "she" also be "se" in the inner context?

I was afraid you would ask me that But seriously, that is the right kind of question to ask in order to master the distinctions being made.... Now that I'm re-reading the sentence several times, I think it has more to do with the overall semantics of the situation, as well as the referent of eam, then it does with se. In the first place, if the woman/wife is shouting, "I don't have enough money to go to Rome straight away," she is making a statement about the time of speaking; so it would be impossible for her to follow it up by saying, "But the next day I was not able to find any." There could be no "next day" intervening between the first clause and the time speaking, because the two times are identical. Secondly, my sense is that eam needs to refer to some definite entity that was mentioned in the first clause; but that clause did not actually refer to any pecunia, it negated the existence of satis pecuniae. So in summary, your example (b) doesn't make much sense for extra-linguistic reasons. But if someone wanted to say something along those lines, they would have to structure the sentences much differently. For instance, I could envision someone uttering something like this:

Mihi dīxit sē audīvisse fēminam altiōre vōce clāmantem satis sibi pecuniae illō diē nōn fuisse ut Rōmam sine morā īret; neque proximō diē plūs invenīre potuisse.
'He told me that he had heard the woman shouting loudly that she had not had enough money to go to Rome straight away on that (previous) day; and that she had not been able to find any more the next day either.'

I think that by not repeating sē in the second part, we can show that fēmina remains the subject. The contrast is between the two different days.

As a side-note, do Cicero and others of the time often pepper their writing with greek words?

Yes, Cicero does quite a lot; but mainly in his personal letters, not in the philosophical treaties or public speeches.

[phil96]

so it would be impossible for her to follow it up by saying, "But the next day I was not able to find any."

Yes, I wondered about "the next day" in the context and was going to ask.

M&F's section on converting to Indirect Statement mentions subject --> accusative, finite verb --> infinitive, then continues "The rest of the sentence remains unchanged." Now clearly that's not quite true, because there are other things that logically might have to change, e.g., pronouns ("I will travel to Hibernia" --> He said that he would travel to Hibernia).

What about time-related words? Do they have relative or absolute reference in Latin indirect statement? For example, I might say "Ad Hiberniam cras discedam", and someone hearing me might say some time later "Dixerat se ad Hiberniam cras discessurus esse" or "Dixerat se ad Hiberniam proximo die discessurus esse". In English "He had said that he was leaving for Ireland tomorrow" is legal but ambiguous. Would Latin syntax force you to use proximo die rather than cras in this situation?

[Damoetas]

M&F's section on converting to Indirect Statement mentions subject --> accusative, finite verb --> infinitive, then continues "The rest of the sentence remains unchanged." Now clearly that's not quite true, because there are other things that logically might have to change, e.g., pronouns ("I will travel to Hibernia" --> He said that he would travel to Hibernia).

What about time-related words? Do they have relative or absolute reference in Latin indirect statement? For example, I might say "Ad Hiberniam cras discedam", and someone hearing me might say some time later "Dixerat se ad Hiberniam cras discessurus esse" or "Dixerat se ad Hiberniam proximo die discessurus esse". In English "He had said that he was leaving for Ireland tomorrow" is legal but ambiguous. Would Latin syntax force you to use proximo die rather than cras in this situation?

Good observations; I suppose M&F was just wanting to highlight the most salient features of indirect discourse, but of course other things do change. Bradley's Arnold has a good discussion of this (if you don't have a copy yet, you might want to consider getting one for reference). I'll quote several sections of it:

Bradley's Arnold 515. Pronouns
Personal and demonstrative pronouns and possessive adjectives are adjusted to the point of view of the person making the report. In most contexts, therefore, pronouns and possessive adjectives of the third person must be substituted for those of the first and second persons. So,

ego, nōs, become sē.
meus, noster, ---> suus.
tū, vōs, ---> ille, illī (or accusative if the subject of an infinitive).
tuus, vester, ---> illīus, illōrum.
hic, iste, ---> ille or is (or accusative if the subject of an infinitive).

Suppose Caesar met Pompey and said: "I am on your side," (ego) tibi faveō. This might be "reported" in various ways: (i) when C. reminded P. of the incident: dīxī mē tibi favēre; (ii) when P. reminded C.: dīxistī tē mihi favēre; (iii) when C. reported it to X.: dīxī mē illī favēre; (iv) when P. reported it to X.: dīxit sē mihi favēre; (v) when X. reminded C.: dīxistī tē illī favēre; (vi) when X. reminded P.: dīxit sē tibi favēre; and (vii) when X. told Y.: dīxit sē illī favēre. Of all these reports, (vii) is that which is most frequently required by the circumstances.

Note 1 -- The insertion of the sē will often be necessary where no pronoun is required in ōrātiō rēcta (direct discourse): compare tibi parceō with dīxit sē eī parcēre.

Note 2 -- Latin has here an advantage over English: "I" and "you" have, in English indirect discourse, both to be expressed by he; hence constant obscurity. In Latin the "I" generally becomes sē, the "you" ille.

Note 3 -- Ille will be in very constant use in place of is, as it is more distinctive, and opposes the other party to the speaker; sometimes, as in English, a proper name will be introduced.

Bradley's Arnold 516. Adverbs

When (as is usually the case) a reported speech depends on a past verb of "saying," adverbs of present time must be changed into those of past time, and adverbs of place must be accommodated to the sense. So,

nunc becomes tunc
hodiē ---> illō diē
heri ---> prīdiē
crās ---> posterō diē
hīc ---> ibi
hūc ---> illūc
hinc ---> ex eō locō.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised to find exceptions to this somewhere in the corpus of Latin literature. They would be especially likely (I'm guessing) in contexts like Plautus's comedies, where the times of speaking are usually quite close to the events reported, as opposed to extended historical narratives like Caesar.

A final tiny point: note that in your example sentence, the future infinitive should also be accusative: Dixerat se ad Hiberniam proximo die discessurum esse. Probably just a small oversight! Anyway, I hope all this discussion is helpful....

[phil96]

Bradley's Arnold has a good discussion of this (if you don't have a copy yet, ...

Ah, you're very kind. I should start reading my copy! And, sadly, discessurus esse wasn't just a little slip; rather, a plain old mistake. Thanks, your comments are invariably both helpful and encouraging.