Hi guys, need some help with indirect statements.

Latin Learning Latin
1

they confuse my brain.

“The old man thought that his son was calling to him”

I’m going with “senex putavit filium eum advocisse”. Is that OK? Having two objects confuses it i think. Would “the old man thought that his son had called him” be better??

Also, when relative clauses appear things get confusing. eg. “The merchant replied that the slaves who were pouring out wine had been bought for a great price”. I went for “mercator respondit servos, qui vinum effunderent, pretio bono emptos esse”. Is “pretio bono” ok for “for a good price”? Did I get the subjunctive right with “effunderent”??

Another one confusing me is “I say that the Romans are able to beat you”. I used to using potere + and infinitive for “are able to do something”. But having 2 verbs pwns my indirent statement, any ideas what to do?

any help is greatly appreciated.

2

they confuse my brain.

“The old man thought that his son was calling to him”

I’m going with “senex putavit filium eum advocisse”. Is that OK? Having two objects confuses it i think. Would “the old man thought that his son had called him” be better??

“senex…etc” means “the old man thought his son had been calling to him.” You see there’s a difference between the present and perfect infinitive here - and, by the way, the perfect infinitive is advocavisse, or advocasse, if you wish to use the truncated form. The perfect is used if the calling occurs before the thinking, the present if it occurs at the same time.

So “had been calling him” - use the perfect

“was calling him” - use the present.

Also for “him”, if it refers back to the subject of the sentence (i.e. him is the same person as senex) is translated as “se”. “Eum” would suggest that the old man heard his son calling to someone else.

You are of course correct that having two accusatives can confuse things. The priestess at Delphi replied to Pyrrhus, king of the Greek city of Epirus, who had gone to ask for his chances against the Romans:

Aio te Romanos vincere posse.

Does this mean “I say you are able to conquer the Romans” or “I say the Romans are able to conquer you”. Most listeners would assume that since te came first, that it would be the subject of the sentence. But of course the Romans conquered Epirus.

Also, when relative clauses appear things get confusing. eg. “The merchant replied that the slaves who were pouring out wine had been bought for a great price”. I went for “mercator respondit servos, qui vinum effunderent, pretio bono emptos esse”. Is “pretio bono” ok for “for a good price”? Did I get the subjunctive right with “effunderent”??

Subjunctive is OK - right tense as well.

As for your genitive/ablative confusion, listen here:

We use the ablative of price when we mention what the goods were actually bought with - for gold (auro), for thirty minae (triginta minis). This is analogous with the ablative of instrument - money is the instrument of a business transaction.

If we’re talking about an indefinite amount - I value your freindship highly, or I bought this cheaply - then we should use the genitive of value. I would use an adjective in the genitive agreeing with pretium - which can simply be left out. So -

amicitiam tuam magni aestimo.

hoc parvi emi.

“For a good price” - I would translate this as “boni” or “boni pretii”.

3

“The old man thought that his son was calling to him”

I’m going with “senex putavit filium eum advocisse”. Is that OK? Having two objects confuses it i think. Would “the old man thought that his son had called him” be better??

Which is it that you want to say, “was calling” or “had called”?

“was calling” = advocare (a present infinitive indicates simultaneous actions)
“had called” = advocavisse/advocasse (a perfect infinitive indicates an action that has taken place before the action of the main verb)

Another one confusing me is “I say that the Romans are able to beat you”. I used to using potere + and infinitive for “are able to do something”.

In this example you have the right idea, but the verb is “posse” not “potere”. It’s a present infinitive because you are talking about simultaneous actions. The “to do something” is just a simple complementary infinitive. It’s called that because it completes the idea.

Magistra

4

wow ty turpissimus (i hate chavs too, they need some latin lessons with corporal punishment) and magistra:

I understand about the vocare one now - it’s simultaneous with the main verb so it sould be in the present. Still not sure whether I can use eum or se?? It does refer back to the subject, but how can i use se in there?? “putavit se filium advocare” would mean “He thought that he was calling to his son” wouldnt it? Whereas using is,ea, id refers to someone else and not him??

got the bit about posse etc, ty. “dico Romanes vos vincere posse” would be ok??

Gonna read up about ablatives of price etc, i was just putting it in the dative.

5

ty

If you are saying thanks, then aestima hoc parvi.

I understand about the vocare one now - it’s simultaneous with the main verb so it sould be in the present. Still not sure whether I can use eum or se?? It does refer back to the subject, but how can i use se in there?? “putavit se filium advocare” would mean “He thought that he was calling to his son” wouldnt it? Whereas using is,ea, id refers to someone else and not him??

Yeah, se. You just have to deal with the ambiguity. If it’s that worrying put the subject of the dependant clause first, and the object next. And, having just checked, I think vocare on its own should suffice for to call. advoco really means “call for the assistance of, summon”.

got the bit about posse etc, ty. “dico Romanes vos vincere posse” would be ok??

You’re making the same mistake as Brian in “Life of Brian”. Romans is a second declension noun, not a third declension noun. Your version means “people called Romanes”. You want to use “Romanos”.

6

ty = thankyou :slight_smile:

i’ll go for “senex putavit filium se advocare”

1 more thing, does anyone know the latin name for Homer? need the accusative - is it Homerem??

7

Homerus, i

Long vowel on the e. Accusative regularly formed from the root.

8

Homerum then, thnks again.