Adler: Use of tenses keeps my head spinning

Salvete,

I do not comprehend at all the use of the tenses in one of Adler’s exercises (ex Exercise 164):

In the lesson this exercise belongs to, Adler deals with subjunctive after relatives (p. 586). This sentence seems to best fit part C (“When the relative is precedded by an indefinite expression, positive or negative, or by an indefinite question involving a negation, its verb is in the subjunctive”). He also gives some examples:

  • Sunt, qui dicant, censeant. There are those who say, those who suppose.
  • Sunt,qui dixerint, viderint. There are those who have heard, those who have seen.
  • Fuerunt, qui dicerent. There were those who said.

Still, this does not really help me. Does not the Latin sentence “Multi sunt, qui te errare (falli) dixerint” mean the following: “There ARE many who HAVE SAID that you are mistaken.” And is the alternative using “dicerent” even possible?

But Adler made a shift from past (English) in the main sentence to present in the Latin one. So, should not the Latin sentence be: “Multi fuerunt, qui te errare (falli) dicerent”?

Valete,

Carolus Raeticus

I agree with you. Or maybe it could be
Multi erant, qui te errare (falli) dicerent.

But whether you use the perfect or the imperfect to translate were, it does not change the substance.

Gratias tibi ago!

Carolus Raeticus