Avete, Textkitenses!
This sentence, which appeared in YLE’s Nuntii Latini last year, caught my interest.
Lex antitabacaria, quam etiam curatores magnorum certaminum autocineticorum observent oportet, inde a mense Iulio anno bismillesimo quinto valere incipiet.
[My translation: The anti-tobacco law, which even the organisers of large motor-racing events must observe, will come into force from July 2005.]
A&G [section565] explains how oportet may take a subjunctive.
But does this construction have to be used when the “must” (in the English) occurs in a subordinate clause? Or would it be just as valid for them to have written
…quam etiam curatores…oportet observare...?
If by “English ‘must’” you refer to the notion of compulsion or propriety to do something, then oportet+subj and oportet+(acc)+inf. are two equally valid constructions and, pace the grammar books there does not appear to be any concrete semantic difference between the two. Certain authors seem to prefer certain constructions: for the infinitive (in the above notion of ‘must’) the Comedians, Cicero, Virgil and Pliny, inter alios tend to be staunch supporters; for the subjunctive Cato, Sallust, Seneca and Petronius inter alios. Livy uses both with apparent indiscrimination, and I know of at least one instance wherein Tully uses the subj (pro S.Rosc.Am.36). In terms of overall occurrences in Classical Latin, I think there would be general that (acc+) infin is the more common of the two.
~D
Gee whizz, whiteoctave, you’re a walking thesaurus of Latin literature!