Illud solum vidi vinum tibi super tunicam effundi.
I saw that alone... he spilled wine on you above the tunic.
?
effundi?
I saw that alone... he spilled wine on you above the tunic.
?
effundi?
".... that the wine was being spilt ..." to represent the tenses correctly. ("had been spilt" would be effusum esse instead of effundi)I merely saw that the wine had been spilled on your tunic.
I checked my textbook and discovered (realized for the 1st time) that the present passive infinitive is effundi instead of effunderi, 3rd conjugation. Thanks".... that the wine was being spilt ..." to represent the tenses correctly. ("had been spilt" would be effusum esse instead of effundi)
No it doesn’t, one of the verbs is the wrong tense."He saw that the wine is being spilt" doesn't sound like proper English to me.
I didn't realize that; Illud solum vidi vinum tibi super tunicam effundi. was an indirect statement.Please review indirect statements, especially the use of tenses there, as explained here by Ignis Umbra:
THREAD: indirect-statement
what is the translation ofPlease review indirect statements, especially the use of tenses there, as explained here by Ignis Umbra:
THREAD: indirect-statement
The romans thought the city will someday be besieged.As stated in the post, it is an incorrectly formed sentence. However, the intended meaning is "The Romans thought the city would one day be besieged".
This is not a proper English sentence.The romans thought the city will someday be besieged.
This is a proper English sentence and the right translation is in the answer key:The Romans thought the city would someday be besieged.
4) Romani creverunt fore ut civitas olim obsideretur OR Romani creverunt civitatem olim obsessum iri
It is explained in the article.? or do you use the future subjunctive at all for would vs will?
T".... that the wine was being spilt ..." to represent the tenses correctly. ("had been spilt" would be effusum esse instead of effundi)
Romani creverunt civitas olim obsessurus esse. (?) Wheelock Caput xxv. Taking 4th principle part, swapping -urus for -um to make future active participle, then esse for the infinitive for an indirect statement. The subject is accusative plural. (BTW, if this thread is just for John Abshire, tell me. I try to remain on point, resolving issues I see unresolved, and not highjack the thread)what is the translation of
Romani creverunt civitas olim obsidebitur
?
The future participle is (unlike the past one) an active participle and as a result, the periphrastic future infinitive of the future active participle + esse is an infinitive active. This construction would work if you have an active statement, e.g.Romani creverunt civitas olim obsessurus esse. (?) Wheelock Caput xxv. Taking 4th principle part, swapping -urus for -um to make future active participle, then esse for the infinitive for an indirect statement.
Yes. All this stuff is explained there. Please read it again, or read it entirely for the first time if you haven't yet. I know it's long-ish, but you can't always avoid that if you want to learn since not everything can be explained in one sentence.It is explained in the article.
I must not have asked the question clearly.It is explained in the article.