Questions about sentences with indirect statements, speech, conditions, and uses of the infinitive.

[Domina Languida]

Salvete,

I have 5 sentences to translate into Latin, but some of them are confusing and I don't know if they're correct.

I. They said that Cicero drove Catiline into exile. I think it's indirect speech.
I got: Dixerunt Cicero pepulisse/egisse Catiline in exilium.

II. The barbarian queen wrote that she would do all the things that she had promised to her soldiers.
I think it's indirect speech, but I don't know if the words after the second "that" are also indirect speech.
I got: Regina barbara scripsit se facturus esse omnis/omnem res/rem (I don't know if it's nom. or acc. here) ut pollicitus esset/promisisset suis militibus.

III. I believe that if they remain in the land they will lose both their health and their friends. I think it is a future more vivid condition, but I don't know what the "I believe that..." is. (Maybe it's one of those indirect questions that doesn't use a verb of asking or a proper interrogative, or maybe it's an indirect statement).
I got: Credo (ut?) si in terra manebunt, et (suas) salutem et (suos) amicos perdent/amittent.

IV. You (plural) asked me where the money was. I think it's an indirect question.
I got: Rogavistis me ubi pecuniam esset.

V. If the cavalrymen were brave, they would hurry to the river. I think it's a contrary to fact present condition.
I got: Si equites (pl.)/equitatus (sg.) fortes/fortis (respectively) esset, ad flumen ruerunt.

Gratias!

 

[Imber Ranae]

I. They said that Cicero drove Catiline into exile. I think it's indirect speech.
I got: Dixerunt Cicero pepulisse/egisse Catiline in exilium.

Yes, it's indirect discourse. Check the case of Cicero and Catilina.

II. The barbarian queen wrote that she would do all the things that she had promised to her soldiers.
I think it's indirect speech, but I don't know if the words after the second "that" are also indirect speech.
I got: Regina barbara scripsit se facturus esse omnis/omnem res/rem (I don't know if it's nom. or acc. here) ut pollicitus esset/promisisset suis militibus.

Again, facturus is in the wrong case, and it and polliciturus are also the wrong gender.

The first 'that' introduces indirect discourse but the second one is a relative pronoun, so you need to use a relative pronoun instead of ut. Use the neuter plural omnia for 'everything'.

III. I believe that if they remain in the land they will lose both their health and their friends. I think it is a future more vivid condition, but I don't know what the "I believe that..." is. (Maybe it's one of those indirect questions that doesn't use a verb of asking or a proper interrogative, or maybe it's an indirect statement).
I got: Credo (ut?) si in terra manebunt, et (suas) salutem et (suos) amicos perdent/amittent.

It's indirect statement, so you need to use Acc. + Inf. as above. The protasis (clause with si) has to have a subjunctive verb because it's dependent on indirect discourse.

IV. You (plural) asked me where the money was. I think it's an indirect question.
I got: Rogavistis me ubi pecuniam esset.

Right, but wrong case for pecuniam. It's the subject.

V. If the cavalrymen were brave, they would hurry to the river. I think it's a contrary to fact present condition.
I got: Si equites (pl.)/equitatus (sg.) fortes/fortis (respectively) esset, ad flumen ruerunt.

With equites the verb would be essent. The verb ruo needs to be the same tense and mood as the other verb.

 

[Pacifica]

Again, facturus and pollicitus are in the wrong case, and this time also the wrong gender.

Pollicitus is not in the wrong case (but indeed in the wrong gender).

 

[Imber Ranae]

Oops, I wrongly combined two statements into one*. I'll edit.


*I had originally written 'Again, facturus is in the wrong case, and this time also in the wrong gender', and said later that polliciturus was in the wrong gender as well. Then I haplessly decided to save some space by combining the two statements, but did so without giving it proper consideration.

 

[Domina Languida]

Yes, it's indirect discourse. Check the case of Cicero and Catilina.

I. Would they both be in the accusative, so 'Catilinam' and 'Ciceronem'? How can you tell?

Again, facturus is in the wrong case, and it and polliciturus are also the wrong gender.

II. So 'facturam esse'? And 'pollicita esset'?
I had 'pollicitus esset' (deponent pluperfect subjunctive), not 'polliciturus' (future passive participle); is polliciturus better?

The first 'that' introduces indirect discourse but the second one is a relative pronoun, so you need to use a relative pronoun instead of ut. Use the neuter plural omnia for 'everything'.

II. It's 'all of the things', so shouldn't there be a 'res' in there? Would it be 'quae' (nominative feminine plural) to agree with 'all the things', if 'res' is used?

It's indirect statement, so you need to use Acc. + Inf. as above. The protasis (clause with si) has to have a subjunctive verb because it's dependent on indirect discourse.

III. So is it not a future condition? I don't know how it works with a condition. Would the apodosis have a subjunctive verb too? Wouldn't that make it a future less vivid condition?

Right, but wrong case for pecuniam. It's the subject.

IV. So, pecunia. I'm really bad at figuring out if it's the subject or the object. Is there an easy way to tell?

With equites the verb would be essent. The verb ruo needs to be the same tense and mood as the other verb.

V. Oh, okay, oops! But if I used 'equitatus', then it would be 'esset', right? My mistake, I meant to type 'ruerent'.

 

[aegor]

I. Would they both be in the accusative, so 'Catilinam' and 'Ciceronem'? How can you tell?

The subject often leads in the indirect discourse, especially in cases of ambiguity.

II. So 'facturam esse'? And 'pollicita esset'?
I had 'pollicitus esset' (deponent pluperfect subjunctive), not 'polliciturus' (future passive participle); is polliciturus better?

No. Pollicitus is correct; polliciturus esset would mean "had been about to promise," which is something else completely. I assume Imber Ranae made a typo.

II. It's 'all of the things', so shouldn't there be a 'res' in there? Would it be 'quae' (nominative feminine plural) to agree with 'all the things', if 'res' is used?

There is absolutely no res. Res generally refers to a specific class of thing or affairs, e.g. "the political affair" or "personal circumstances." When one is talking about "thing" is the extremely broad way you are, one simply uses a neuter substantive. Thus you should use omnia, the neuter plural nom/acc form, substantively.

III. So is it not a future condition? I don't know how it works with a condition. Would the apodosis have a subjunctive verb too? Wouldn't that make it a future less vivid condition?

It is indeed a future condition. You are correct in stating that it is more vivid.

Your difficulty is in assuming that the form of the conditional remains the same in indirect speech. It does not. The apodosis, being the main clause of the conditional, has its verb in the infinitive, as main clauses in indirect speech normally are. Subordinate clauses, of which the protasis is one, typically take the subjunctive if part of the thought of the speaker. Thus, it would take a subjunctive. This in no way alters the meaning of the conditional or makes it less vivid.

IV. So, pecunia. I'm really bad at figuring out if it's the subject or the object. Is there an easy way to tell?

What is the verb? What is doing or 'being' the verb?

 

[Domina Languida]

It is indeed a future condition. You are correct in stating that it is more vivid.

Your difficulty is in assuming that the form of the conditional remains the same in indirect speech. It does not. The apodosis, being the main clause of the conditional, has its verb in the infinitive, as main clauses in indirect speech normally are. Subordinate clauses, of which the protasis is one, typically take the subjunctive if part of the thought of the speaker. Thus, it would take a subjunctive. This in no way alters the meaning of the conditional or makes it less vivid.

Okay, so would it be: "Credo ut si maneant in terra, perditurus esse/amissurus esse (future infinitive) et salutem et amicos."?
Would I need to use a form of suus (ex. sua salutem et suos amicos)?

Doesn't this mess with sequence of tenses?
Are 'believe' and 'lose' both main verbs, and 'remain' is a subordinate verb?
I thought the structure for the future more vivid had to be a future indicative verb in both the protasis and the apodosis.

 

[Pacifica]

Okay, so would it be: "Credo ut si maneant in terra, perditurus esse/amissurus esse (future infinitive) et salutem et amicos."?

"that they will lose their health and their friends" is the main part of the indirect statement, so it must be an accusative and infinitive clause (literally "I believe them to be about to lose health and friends"). Ut has nothing to do there. "That" introducing an indirect statement in English doesn't translate literally into classical Latin, but instead of "that" + a clause with a finite verb, in Latin you have a clause with the subject in the accusative and the verb in the infinitive, and that's all: no word like ut to introduce it. Example: "He says that she is beautiful" = Dicit illam pulchram esse = literally "she says her to be beautiful".

In addition to having the wrong case, perditurus/amissurus is also in the wrong number.

Would I need to use a form of suus (ex. sua salutem et suos amicos)?

It's unnecessary; the possessive can be omitted in this case. It isn't used as systematically in Latin as it is in English. It would be used the way you do there (repeated twice and coming in first position before each noun) only if you wanted to convey a very great emphasis on "their". Also, sua doesn't agree with salutem in case.

Doesn't this mess with sequence of tenses?

No.

Are 'believe' and 'lose' both main verbs, and 'remain' is a subordinate verb?

"Believe" is the main verb of the whole sentence; "lose" is subordinate to it but it's the main verb of the indirect discourse clause, to which the clause of "remain" is subordinate.

I thought the structure for the future more vivid had to be a future indicative verb in both the protasis and the apodosis.

In direct discourse, yes. But as Aegor explained, indirect discourse calls for the subjunctive in subordinate clauses depending on it and for infinitive verbs in the main indirect discourse clause.

 

[Domina Languida]

Okay, I think I get it, hopefully.
Credo eos perdituri/amissuri esse (instead of perditurus/amissurus, because it's plural? Or does the future infinitive not have plural, just different genders?) et salutem et amicos si maneant in terra. (I don't know if the word order is correct).
Which is a better word for loss in this context; amitto or perdo?

 

[Pacifica]

Perdituri/amissuri is still in the wrong case. The future participle has number, gender, and case.

Your word order isn't incorrect per se, but given the word order of the English original, it would be more accurate to put the si clause more to the beginning — i.e. credo, si maneant in terra... or credo eos, si maneant in terra...

Amitto or perdo can both work, but perdo more strongly implies that they will lose them by their own fault.

 

[Domina Languida]

Perdituri/amissuri is still in the wrong case.

Your word order isn't incorrect per se, but given the word order of the English original, it would be more accurate to put the si clause more to the beginning — i.e. credo, si maneant in terra... or credo eos, si maneant in terra...

Amitto or perdo can both work, but perdo more strongly implies that they will lose them by their own fault.

Oh okay, that makes sense. What case should perdo/amitto be in? Do future infinitives have all the case endings that a noun would have?

 

[Pacifica]

Oh okay, that makes sense. What case should perdo/amitto be in?

What does it refer to? To the subject of an accusative and infinitive clause, right?

Do future infinitives have all the case endings that a noun would have?

Future participles have all the case endings that a noun or adjective would have, yes.

 

[Domina Languida]

What does it refer to? To the subject of an accusative and infinitive clause, right?
Future participles have all the case endings that a noun or adjective would have, yes.

Oh! I didn't know it was a participle. Why is it a future participle and not and future infinitive? Does that mean I'd leave off the "esse"? I'm so confused, sorry. :S
So, it would be perdituros?

 

[Pacifica]

Oh! I didn't know it was a participle. Why is it a future participle and not and future infinitive? Does that mean I'd leave off the "esse"? I'm so confused, sorry. :S

The future infinitive is formed from the future participle + esse. The part having case endings is the participle, not the infinitive esse, that's what I meant. Esse can be omitted, but not necessarily.

So, it would be perdituros?

That would work.

 

[Domina Languida]

The future infinitive is formed from the future participle + esse. The part having case endings is the participle, not the infinitive esse, that's what I meant. Esse can be omitted, but not necessarily.
That would work.

Okay, thank you so much!

 

[Pacifica]

You're welcome!