# Ch. 30  "Evidence and Confession"

**URL:** <https://www.textkit.com/t/ch-30-evidence-and-confession/10484>\
**Category:** Wheelock's Latin\
**Created:** [June 19, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/ch-30-evidence-and-confession/10484 "2011-06-19T01:08:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![spqr](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@spqr](https://www.textkit.com/u/spqr)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/ch-30-evidence-and-confession/10484/1 "2011-06-19T01:08:43Z")

</div>

… sed primo dubitavit et negavit se de his rebus responsurum esse. I don’t have any trouble translating this sentence but rather I question the Latin wording. Shouldn’t the next to last word be responsurus(masculine)?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Craig\_Thomas](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Craig\_Thomas](https://www.textkit.com/u/Craig_Thomas)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/ch-30-evidence-and-confession/10484/2 "2011-06-19T02:30:03Z")

</div>

It’s masculine, but accusative, agreeing with its subject, _se_. It’s part of the acc + inf. construction which I’m sure you’ve come across before and which regularly follows a verb of speech or thought or perception.

An infinitive can never have a nominative subject.