liberaturos esse

[john abshire]

dum autem mare transit, a piratis quibusdam captus est qui promiserunt se, quinquaginta talentis acceptis, captivum suum liberaturos esse.

book- "while he was crossing the sea, he was captured by some pirates who promised that they would free their prisoner on receipt of fifty talents."
me- "while he crossed the sea however, he was captured by certain pirates who promised him, with fifty talents having been accepted, that they would release their prisoner."

quibusdam= certain, or some? or does it matter?
se- shouldn't this be represented by him, as in my translation, or did the author just leave it out because it was not necessary for clarity?
captivum suum liberaturos esse. Is this an indirect statement? introduced by the phrase of promising?? If so, could the subject be captivum? (if it made any sense)??
os- where does the os come from in liberaturos? Shouldn't this agree with the subject? in this case pirati, and liberaturi be correct?

 

[Godmy]

promised him would have to be prōmīsērunt eī = dative; sē is the subject of the ACI clause. certain and some can mean quite one and the same in English, not much point in discussing that issue. release is rather dīmittō while līberō = to liberate/to free.


- prōmīsērunt: iī(nom.pl.) captīvum suum līberābunt -> prōmīsērunt sē captīvum suum līberātūrōs esse
(direct statement vs. indirect statement in ACI)



the future active infinitive (in an ACI) is made with the future active participle that needs to be in the accusative and congruent (agreeing) in case, number, gender with the subject, where the subject is in the accusative too (because ACI), here the subject is "sē" (acc.pl.) which stands for iī (=they) if it wasn't an ACI clause.


So sē = acc.pl; līberātūrōs = acc.pl.; (nom.sg. līberātūrus) the infinitive agrees in case with the subject. (infinitives have a CASE if they consist of a participle... in this case it does).

 

[john abshire]

promised him would have to be prōmīsērunt eī = dative; sē is the subject of the ACI clause. certain and some can mean quite one and the same in English, not much point in discussing that issue. release is rather dīmittō while līberō = to liberate/to free.


- prōmīsērunt: iī(nom.pl.) captīvum suum līberābunt -> prōmīsērunt sē captīvum suum līberātūrōs esse
(direct statement vs. indirect statement in ACI)



the future active infinitive (in an ACI) is made with the future active participle that needs to be in the accusative and congruent (agreeing) in case, number, gender with the subject, where the subject is in the accusative too (because ACI), here the subject is "sē" (acc.pl.) which stands for iī (=they) if it wasn't an ACI clause.


So sē = acc.pl; līberātūrōs = acc.pl.; (nom.sg. līberātūrus) the infinitive agrees in case with the subject. (infinitives have a CASE if they consist of a participle... in this case it does).

Is se the subject of the indirect statement, because it represents the same subject as the main clause?
I think I get that os is plural because se is plural (in this instance), but I still don’t understand why liberaturos is in accusative? Unless it is because this is an acc/ infinitive construction. If so, then the - turos would always be accusative, (never -us or -I, etc).
Edit:
I found that -urus is always accusative, at least in the case of indirect statement/ accusative infinitive construction, but it is a mystery why the textbook does not simply say that indirect statements future are only -urus (with accusative ending) +esse. The example given is; “he says that the enemy will come.” Dicit hostes venturos esse,

 

[Pacifica]

Is se the subject of the indirect statement, because it represents the same subject as the main clause?

Yes. Well, the subject of the relative clause (qui), whose verb introduces the indirect statement and which is therefore kind of the main clause relatively to the indirect statement.

I think I get that os is plural because se is plural (in this instance), but I still don’t understand why liberaturos is in accusative? Unless it is because this is an acc/ infinitive construction. If so, then the - turos would always be accusative, (never -us or -I, etc).

Yes, it's because it's an accusative-and-infinitive construction.

 

[Godmy]

Furthermore, note, that the future participle has in fact separate PARTICIPAL uses where it really has the meaning of a participle, outside of the infinitive, there it can be in any case possible. "Caesar Rōmam līberātūrus est." -> Caesar is going to liberate the city of Rome.

 

[john abshire]

Furthermore, note, that the future participle has in fact separate PARTICIPAL uses where it really has the meaning of a participle, outside of the infinitive, there it can be in any case possible. "Caesar Rōmam līberātūrus est." -> Caesar is going to liberate the city of Rome.

I was hoping to find an example of “fixing to”, id est,
a future participle is my “fixing to” participle.
Caesar Romam liberaturus est.
Caesar is fixing to liberate Rome.

 

[Godmy]

I have no idea what in English does "Caesar is fixing to liberate Rome." even mean, but I can tell you that it's a VERY non-standard translation of this periphrastic future conjugation! Best avoid experiments such as this, go by the book.

 

[Matthaeus]

That's a very colloquial expression meaning the same as "about to verb something"

 

[john abshire]

That's a very colloquial expression meaning the same as "about to verb something"

Southern (United States) English

 

[Godmy]

Alright!

That's a very colloquial expression meaning the same as "about to verb something"

^ there's your answer, John

 

[john abshire]

Alright!

^ there's your answer, John

Obviously now, i was making a joke, with “ ‘fixing to’ verb” being a future participle, but if English is not your native language you would not get the joke.
I did not realize that English is a second language to many of you. (And That says a great deal for how well y’all handle the language.)
(And y’all = you, plural -more southern English)

 

[Godmy]

Yes, my native language is Czech...
(however that gives me now and then an upper hand towards Latin grammar analysis, since the grammars are quite alike)

 

[Matthaeus]

same with Polish (7 cases etc)