Illud

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Illud solum vidi vinum tibi super tunicam effundi.
I saw that alone... he spilled wine on you above the tunic.
?
effundi?
 
[learner--so just taking a shot. And it is more difficult without context]

effundi--present passive infinitive. Attached to "vidi"

I merely saw that the wine had been spilled on your tunic. [tibi--dative of reference?]

[This (accusative neuter--some..thing]I merely I saw to have been spilled wine on the tunic, to you][Yes, could be "alone", but I am postulating a chatty conversation, and an off-hand remark.]
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
I merely saw that the wine had been spilled on your tunic.
".... that the wine was being spilt ..." to represent the tenses correctly. ("had been spilt" would be effusum esse instead of effundi)
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
".... that the wine was being spilt ..." to represent the tenses correctly. ("had been spilt" would be effusum esse instead of effundi)
I checked my textbook and discovered (realized for the 1st time) that the present passive infinitive is effundi instead of effunderi, 3rd conjugation. Thanks
However, isn’t effundi = to be spilt, so vidi effundi= he saw that wine is to be spilt? At least effundi should be “is being spilt”?
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
"He saw that the wine is being spilt" doesn't sound like proper English to me.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
"He saw that the wine is being spilt" doesn't sound like proper English to me.
No it doesn’t, one of the verbs is the wrong tense.
I guess you could say that “was being spilt” is “historic present “ or something like that? I was going to say that vinum vidi effundi = “he saw the wine is to be spilt” but that sounds like future.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Please review indirect statements, especially the use of tenses there, as explained here by Ignis Umbra:
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Please review indirect statements, especially the use of tenses there, as explained here by Ignis Umbra:
I didn't realize that; Illud solum vidi vinum tibi super tunicam effundi. was an indirect statement.
What really threw me was effundi. I expected effunderi for a passive infinitive. I didn't realize the 3rd (and mixed) conjugations dropped the first part of the present infinitive when making the infinitive passive.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Please review indirect statements, especially the use of tenses there, as explained here by Ignis Umbra:
what is the translation of
Romani creverunt civitas olim obsidebitur
?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
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".
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
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".
The romans thought the city will someday be besieged.
Romani cogitaverunt urbem olim obsessum iri.
?

The romans thought the city would someday be besieged.
Romani cogitaverunt urbem olim obsessurum sit? or esset?
? or do you use the future subjunctive at all for would vs will?
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
The romans thought the city will someday be besieged.
This is not a proper English sentence.

The Romans thought the city would someday be besieged.
This is a proper English sentence and the right translation is in the answer key:

4) Romani creverunt fore ut civitas olim obsideretur OR Romani creverunt civitatem olim obsessum iri
? or do you use the future subjunctive at all for would vs will?
It is explained in the article.
 
".... that the wine was being spilt ..." to represent the tenses correctly. ("had been spilt" would be effusum esse instead of effundi)
T
what is the translation of
Romani creverunt civitas olim obsidebitur
?
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)
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
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 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.
direct statement: hostes civitatem obsidebunt - "the enemies will besiege the city."
--> indirect statement: Romani creverunt hostes (acc.) civitatem obessuros esse. - "The Romans foresaw that the enemies would besiege the city."

However, in the statement above, you have a future statement in the passive (direct: civitas obsidebitur).
There is no future infinitive passive as such, so you have to find a construction that dodges this problem. One possibility is to use iri + supine I (obsessum iri) – but not all verbs have a supine (or at least there is no evidence of it). That's why the other option is to write fore (the future infinitive of esse) followed by an ut-clause.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
It is explained in the article.
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.
 
I was not the person who wrote the "civitas obsidebitur".

I like the "Romani creverunt hostes civitatem obessuros esse." It reminds me that even in the infinitive construction, the participle must agree with the subject. The double accusative reminds me why indirect speech has most beginner pulling their hair out to try to understand large sections of Caesar discussing the conquest of Gaul.

I realize the "supine + iri" is rare.

But let us try the "fore-ut" clause. (Mondin--Intensive Intermediate Latin--chapter 31)

Romani creverunt fore ut ("id"-understood) (result clause) civiti (non-past, so present subjunctive) obsideant.

Romani creverunt fore ut civiti obsideant. (sc. ab hoste)

Am I close?
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
The civitas obsidebitur sentence was part of an exercise in the post I linked to earlier. It was deliberately incorrect, the purpose of the exercise being to turn it into correct Latin indirect speech. The correct version has already been provided above.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
It is explained in the article.
I must not have asked the question clearly.
either that or I missed this part.
My question was on an indirect statement where a subjunctive (passive) verb would be needed as the “not-main” verb.

e.g. “the romans thought the city might be besieged one day.”
Romani creverunt civitatem olim obsessum sit/ esset.
[for “would be besieged” (future infinitive passive), originally, it was obsessum iri ]

obsessum sit/ or esset came from “indirect questions”, in my textbook, where a future tense is needed. “add the subjunctive of sum to the future participle”.
I thought the same would apply here?
 
Top