Hello folks.
I thought I had my head around the passive infinitive because all the examples so far use modals. Then I see this:
Aemilia Quintum a Iulio in lecto poni aspicit.
I don’t know why I can’t make it out. It’s like I’ve regressed or something.
I don’t expect chapter and verse here, but maybe a pointer to where this idiot can kick his brain into gear.
Meanwhile, I’ll drink tea and have a dig around in Wheelock’s 
Think indirect statement. Aemilia…aspicit is your main clause that sets up the indirect statement. Quintum is the accusative subject of poni, and a Iulio is the ablative of agent.
So Quintum is the accusative object of the Aemilia clause and the subject of the passive verb. So Aemilia watches Quintus being put to bed by Juilius. While I was drinking my tea I read about ablative of agent/means. Or is the whole action of Julius putting Quintus to bed the “accusative object” of the Aemilia clause? I presume (that) if the outer clause were removed, the passive verb would be indicative (ponitur)?
Sorry, having one of those “forgotten how to think” days.
You have an accusative and (active) infinitive construction here:
Mārcus Quīntum ad terram cadere videt (l.104)
The accusative and (passive ) infinitive construction in your example is:
Aemilia Quīntum ā Iūliō in lectō pōnī aspicit (l.131).
They follow exactly the same structure.
I think its best to think of the accusative as the subject of the infinitive. This is quite straightforward in the active infinitive sentence. Quīntus fall(ing) to the ground. In the passive infinitive case it is “Quīntus being carried (by Iūlius)”. The whole infinitive and accusative construction is then the object of the verb of perception videt or aspicit. (You could also think of just the infinitive being the object as we have already decided that Quīntum is the subject of the verb. )
I hope this isn’t too confusing.
Cheers. Not confusing (the tea helped). I think you have confirmed my thoughts regarding “the whole inner clause (the infinitive and it’s gubbins)” is the object of the outer clause (be it perception or modal). I think what was confusing was that in the indicative the affected thing becomes nominative, but the additional verb makes it accusative - if we remove Aemilia from the equation, then Quintum becomes Quintus (and poni → ponitur). Oh no, my brain just broke again.
Tea always helps!
Yes you have understood it. It often helps to write out the direct version of what is essentially an indirect statement. So Quīntus ad terram cadit becomes (Mārcus) Quīntum ad terram cadere videt in the acc plus inf (indirect ) construction. The fact that the verb in your construction is passive doesn’t really change anything. Quīntus ā Iūliō in lectō pōnitur becomes Aemilia Quīntum ā Iūliō in lectō pōnī aspicit. The difficult thing to get ones head round is that the accusative case is used for the subject of the infinitive.
Incidentally think you are confusing yourself by using the term “indicative” . I would forget about that.
Heh. Can’t help it. From learning Spanish and German.
Wheelock’s 6th edition, page 164: “Infinitive in indirect statement with accusative subject.”
Three pages later the list of applicable verbs.