Word order and style

Clauses of Result may be used substantively, (1) as the object of faciō etc. (§ 568); (2) as the subject of these same verbs in the passive, as well as of other verbs and verbal phrases (§ 569); (3) in apposition with another substantive, or as predicate nominative etc. (see §§ 570, 571). In all these cases the clause is not strictly subject or object. The main verb originally conveyed a meaning sufficient in itself, and the result clause was merely complementary. This is seen by the frequent use of ita and the like with the main verb ( ita accidit ut , etc.). In like manner purpose clauses are only apparently subject or object of the verb with which they are connected.

Substantive Clauses of Result with ut (negative ut nōn ) are used as the object of verbs denoting the accomplishment of an effort. Verbs and phrases taking an ut- clause of result as subject or object are accēdit, accidit, additur, altera est rēs, committō, cōnsequor, contingit, efficiō, ēvenit, faciō, fit, flerī potest, fore, impetrō, integrum est, mōs est, mūnus est, necesse est, prope est, rēctum est, relinquitur, reliquum est, restat, tantī est, tantum abest , and a few others.

Such are especially faciō and its compounds ( efficiō , cōnficiō , etc.):— efficiam ut intellegātis (Clu. 7) , I will make you understand (lit. effect that you, etc.). [So, faciam ut intellegātis (id. 9).]

commeātūs ut portārī possent efficiēbat (B. G. 2.5) , made it possible that supplies could be brought.

perfēcī ut ē rēgnō ille discēderet (Fam. 15.4.6) , I brought about his departure from the kingdom.

quae lībertās ut laetior esset rēgis superbia fēcerat (Liv. 2.1) , the arrogance of the king had made this liberty more welcome.

ēvincunt īnstandō ut litterae darentur (id. 2.4), by insisting they gain their point,—that letters should be sent. [Here ēvincunt = efficiunt .]

The expressions facere ut , committere ut , with the subjunctive, often form a periphrasis for the simple verb: as, invītus fēcī ut Flāminium ē senātū ēicerem (Cat. M. 42) , it was with reluctance that I expelled Flaminius from the senate.

Substantive Clauses of Result are used as the subject of the following:—

Of passive verbs denoting the accomplishment of an effort:— impetrātum est utin senātū recitārentur (litterae) (B. C. 1.1), they succeeded in having the letter read in the senate (it was brought about that, etc.).

ita efficitur ut omne corpus mortāle sit (N. D. 3.30) , it therefore is made out that every body is mortal.

Of Impersonals meaning it happens, it remains, it follows, it is necessary, it is added, and the like (§ 568, footnote):— accidit ut essetlūna plēna (B. G. 4.29) , it happened to be full moon (it happened that it was, etc.). [Here ut esset is subject of accidit .]

reliquum est utofficiīs certēmusinter nōs (Fam. 7.31) , it remains for us to vie with each other in courtesies.

restat ut hōc dubitēmus (Rosc. Am. 88) , it is left for us to doubt this.

sequitur ut doceam (N. D. 2.81) , the next thing is to show (it follows, etc.).

The infinitive sometimes occurs: as, —nec enim acciderat mihi opus esse (Fam. 6.11.1) , for it had not happened to be necessary to me. Necesse est often takes the subjunctive without ut : as, — concēdās necesse est (Rosc. Am. 87) , you must grant.

Of est in the sense of it is the fact that, etc. (mostly poetic):— est ut virō vir lātius ōrdinetarbusta (Hor. Od. 3.1.9) , it is the fact that one man plants his vineyards in wider rows than another.

Fore (or futūrum esse ) ut with a clause of result as subject is Often used instead of the Future Infinitive active or passive; so necessarily in verbs which have no supine stem:— spērō fore ut contingat id nōbīs (Tusc. 1.82) , I hope that will be our happy lot.

cum vidērem fore ut nōn possem (Cat. 2.4) , when I saw that I should not be able.

A substantive clause of result may be in apposition with another substantive (especially a neuter pronoun):— illud etiam restiterat, ut tē in iūs ēdūcerent (Quinct. 33) , this too remained— for them to drag you into court.

A substantive clause of result may serve as predicate nominative after mōs est and similar expressions:— est mōs hominum, ut nōlint eundem plūribus rēbus excellere (Brut. 84) , it is the way of men to be unwilling for one man to excel in several things.

A result clause, with or without ut , frequently follows quam after a comparative (but see § 583. c):— Canachī sīgna rigidiōra sunt quam ut imitentur vēritātem (Brut. 70) , the statues of Canachus are too stiff to represent nature (stiffer than that they should).

perpessus est omnia potius quam indicāret (Tusc. 2.52) , he endured all rather than betray, etc. [Regularly without ut except in Livy.]

The phrase tantum abest, it is so far [from being the case], regularly takes two clauses of result with ut : one is substantive, the subject of abest; the other is adverbial, correlative with tantum :— tantum abest ut nostra mīrēmur, ut ūsque eō difficilēs ac mōrōsī sīmus, ut nōbīs nōn satis faciat ipse Dēmosthenēs (Or. 104) , so far from admiring my own works, I am difficult and captious to that degree that not Demosthenes himself satisfies me. [Here the first ut-clause is the subject of abest (§ 569. 2); the second, a result clause after tantum (§ 537); and the third, after ūsque eō .]

Rarely, a thought or an idea is considered as a result, and is expressed by the subjunctive with ut instead of the accusative and infinitive (§ 580). In this case a demonstrative usually precedes: praeclārum illud est, ut eōs ... amēmus (Tusc. 3.73) , this is a noble thing, that we should love, etc.

vērī simile nōn est ut ille antepōneret (Verr. 4.11) , it is not likely that he preferred.

For Relative Clauses with quīn after verbs of hindering etc., see § 558.

Indicative with Quod

A peculiar form of Substantive Clause consists of quod (in the sense of that, the fact that) with the Indicative.

The clause in the Indicative with quod is used when the statement is regarded as a fact:— alterum est vitium, quod quīdam nimis māgnum studium cōnferunt (Off. 1.19) , it is another fault that some bestow too much zeal, etc. [Here ut cōnferant could be used, meaning that some should bestow; or the accusative and infinitive, meaning to bestow (abstractly); quod makes it a fact that men do bestow, etc.]

inter inanimum et animal hōc maximē interest, quod animal agit aliquid (Acad. 2.37) , this is the chief difference between an inanimate object and an animal, that an animal aims at something.

quod rediit nōbīs mīrābile vidētur (Off. 3.111) , that he (Regulus) returned seems wonderful to us.

accidit perincommodē quod eum nusquam vīdistī (Att. 1.17.2) , it happened very unluckily that you nowhere saw him.

opportūnissima rēs accidit quod Germānī vēnērunt (B. G. 4.13) , a very fortunate thing happened, (namely) that the Germans came.

praetereō quod eam sibi domum sēdemque dēlēgit (Clu. 188) , I pass over the fact that she chose that house and home for herself.

mittō quod possessa per vim (Flacc. 79) , I disregard the fact that they were seized by violence.

Like other substantive clauses, the clause with quod may be used as subject, as object, as appositive, etc., but it is commonly either the subject or in apposition with the subject.

A substantive clause with quod sometimes appears as an accusative of specification, corresponding to the English whereas or as to the fact that:— quod mihi dē nostrō statū grātulāris, minimē mīrāmur tē tuīs praeclārīs operibus laetārī; (Fam. 1.7.7), as to your congratulating me on our condition, we are not at all surprised that you are pleased with your own noble works.

quod dē domō scrībis, ego, etc. (Fam. 14.2.3) , as to what you write of the house, I, etc.

Verbs of feeling and the expression of feeling take either quod ( quia ) or the accusative and infinitive (Indirect Discourse):— quod scrībis ... gaudeō; (Q. Fr. 3.1.9), I am glad that you write.

faciō libenter quod eam nōn possum praeterīre (Legg. 1.63) , I am glad that I cannot pass it by.

quae perfecta esse vehementer laetor (Rosc. Am. 136) , I greatly rejoice that this is finished.

quī quia nōn habuit ā mē turmās equitum fortasse suscēnset (Att. 6.3.5) , who perhaps feels angry that he did not receive squadrons of cavalry from me.

molestē tulī tē senātuī grātiās nōn ēgisse (Fam. 10.27.1) , I was displeased that you did not return thanks to the senate.

Mīror and similar expressions are sometimes followed by a clause with sī . Cf. the Greek qauma/zw ei) . This is apparently substantive, but really protasis (cf. § 563. e. N. 1). Thus, —mīror sī quemquam amīcum habēre potuit (Lael. 54) , I wonder if he could ever have a friend. [Originally, If this is so, I wonder at it.]

Indirect Questions

An Indirect Question is any sentence or clause which is introduced by an interrogative word (pronoun, adverb, etc.), and which is itself the subject or object of a verb, or depends on any expression implying uncertainty or doubt.

In grammatical form, exclamatory sentences are not distinguished from interrogative (see the third example below).

An Indirect Question takes its verb in the Subjunctive: quid ipse sentiam expōnam (Div. 1.10) , I will explain what I think. [Direct: quid sentiō ?]

id possetne fierī cōnsuluit (id. 1.32), he consulted whether it could be done. [Direct: potestne ?]

quam sīs audāx omnēs intellegere potuērunt (Rosc. Am. 87) , all could understand how bold you are. [Direct: quam es audāx !]

doleam necne doleam nihil interest (Tusc. 2.29) , it is of no account whether I suffer or not. [Double question.]

quaesīvī ā Catilīnā in conventū apud M. Laecam fuisset necne (Cat. 2.13) , I asked Catiline whether he had been at the meeting at Marcus Lœca's or not. [Double question.]

rogat mē quid sentiam, he asks me what I think. [Cf. rogat mē sententiam, he asks me my opinion.]

hōc dubium est, uter nostrum sit inverēcundior (Acad. 2.126) , this is doubtful, which of us two is the less modest.

incertī quātenus Volerō exercēret victōriam (Liv. 2.55) , uncertain how far Volero would push victory. [As if dubitantēs quātenus , etc.]

An Indirect Question may be the subject of a verb (as in the fourth example), the direct object (as in the first), the secondary object (as in the sixth), an appositive (as in the seventh).

The Sequence of Tenses in Indirect Question is illustrated by the following examples:— dīcō quid faciam, I tell you what I am doing.

dīcō quid factūrus sim, I tell you what I will (shall) do.

dīcō quid fēcerim, I tell you what I did (have done, was doing).

dīxī quid facerem, I told you what I was doing.

dīxī quid fēcissem, I told you what I had done (had been doing).

dīxī quid factūrus essem, I told you what I would (should) do (was going to do).

dīxī quid factūrus fuissem, I told you what I would (should) have done.

Indirect Questions referring to future time take the subjunctive of the First Periphrastic Conjugation:— prōspiciō quī concursūs futūrī sint (Caecil. 42) , I foresee what throngs there will be. [Direct: quī erunt ?]

quid sit futūrum crās, fuge quaerere (Hor. Od. 1.9.13) , forbear to ask what will be on the morrow. [Direct: quid erit or futūrum est ?]

posthāc nōn scrībam ad tē quid factūrus sim, sed quid fēcerim (Att. 10.18) , hereafter I shall not write to you what I am going to do, but what I have done. [Direct: quid faciēs (or factūrus eris )? quid fēcistī ?]

This Periphrastic Future avoids the ambiguity which would be caused by using the Present Subjunctive to refer to future time in such clauses.

The Deliberative Subjunctive (§ 444) remains unchanged in an Indirect Question, except sometimes in tense:—

quō mē vertam nesciō; (Clu. 4), I do not know which way to turn. [Direct: quō mē vertam ?]

neque satis cōnstābat quid agerent (B. G. 3.14) , and it was not very clear what they were to do. [Direct: quid agāmus ?]

nec quisquam satis certum habet, quid aut spēret aut timeat (Liv. 22.7.10) , nor is any one well assured what he shall hope or fear. [Here the future participle with sit could not be used.]

incertō quid peterent aut vītārent (id. 28.36.12), since it was doubtful (ablative absolute) what they should seek or shun.

Indirect Questions often take the Indicative in early Latin and in poetry:— vīneam quō in agrō cōnserī oportet sīc observātō; (Cato R. R. 6.4), in what soil a vineyard should be set you must observe thus.

Nesciō quis , when used in an indefinite sense (somebody or other), is not followed by the Subjunctive.

So also nesciō quō ( unde , an, etc.), and the following idiomatic phrases which are practically adverbs:— mīrum (nīmīrum) quam, marvellously (marvellous how).

mīrum quantum, tremendously (marvellous how much).

immāne quantum, monstrously (monstrous how much).

sānē quam, immensely.

valdē quam, enormously.

Examples are:— quī istam nesciō quam indolentiam māgnopere laudant (Tusc. 3.12) , who greatly extol that freedom from pain, whatever it is.

mīrum quantum prōfuit (Liv. 2.1) , it helped prodigiously.

ita fātō nesciō quō contigisse arbitror (Fam. 15.13) , I think it happened so by some fatality or other.

nam suōs valdē quam paucōs habet (id. 11.13A. 3), for he has uncommonly few of his own.

sānē quam sum gāvīsus (id. 11.13A. 4), I was immensely glad.

immāne quantum discrepat (Hor. Od. 1.27.5) , is monstrously at variance.

In colloquial usage and in poetry the subject of an In direct Question is often attracted into the main clause as object (Accusative of Anticipation):— nōstī Mārcellum quam tardus sit (Fam. 8.10.3) , you know how slow Marcellus is. [For nōstī quam tardus sit Mārcellus . Cf. “I know thee who thou art.”]

Cf. potestne igitur eārum rērum, quā rē futūrae sint, ūlla esse praesēnsiō; (Div. 2.15), can there be, then, any foreknowledge as to those things, why they will occur? [A similar use of the Objective Genitive.]

In some cases the Object of Anticipation becomes the Subject by a change of voice , and an apparent mixture of relative and interrogative constructions is the result:— quīdam saepe in parvā pecūniā perspiciuntur quam sint levēs (Lael. 63) , it is often seen, in a trifling matter of money, how unprincipled some people are (some people are often seen through, how unprincipled they are).

quem ad modum Pompêium oppūgnārent ā mē indicātī sunt (Leg. Agr. 1.5) , it has been shown by me in what way they attacked Pompey (they have been shown by me, how they attacked).

An indirect question is occasionally introduced by sī in the sense of whether (like if in English, cf. § 572. b. N.):— circumfunduntur hostēs sī quem aditum reperīre possent (B. G. 6.37) , the enemy pour round [to see] if they can find entrance.

vīsam sī domī est (Ter. Haut. 170) , I will go see if he is at home.

This is strictly a Protasis , but usually no Apodosis is thought of, and the clause is virtually an Indirect Question.

For the Potential Subjunctive with forsitan (originally an Indirect Question), see § 447. a.

INDIRECT DISCOURSE

The use of the Accusative and Infinitive in Indirect Discourse ( ōrātiō oblīqua ) is a comparatively late form of speech, developed in the Latin and Greek only, and perhaps separately in each of them. It is wholly wanting in Sanskrit, but some forms like it have grown up in English and German.

The essential character of Indirect Discourse is, that the language of some other person than the writer or speaker is compressed into a kind of Substantive Clause, the verb of the main clause becoming Infinitive, while modifying clauses, as well as all hortatory forms of speech, take the Subjunctive. The person of the verb necessarily conforms to the new relation of persons.

The construction of Indirect Discourse, however, is not limited to reports of the language of some person other than the speaker; it may be used to express what any one—whether the speaker or some one else—says, thinks, or perceives, whenever that which is said, thought, or perceived is capable of being expressed in the form of a complete sentence. For anything that can be said etc. can also be reported indirectly as well as directly.

The use of the Infinitive in the main clause undoubtedly comes from its use as a case-form to complete or modify the action expressed by the verb of saying and its object together. This object in time came to be regarded as, and in fact to all intents became, the subject of the infinitive. A transition state is found in Sanskrit, which, though it has no indirect discourse proper, yet allows an indirect predication after verbs of saying and the like by means of a predicative apposition, in such expressions as “The maids told the king [that] his daughter [was] bereft of her senses.”

The simple form of indirect statement with the accusative and infinitive was afterwards amplified by introducing dependent or modifying clauses; and in Latin it became a common construction, and could be used to report whole speeches etc., which in other languages would have the direct form. (Compare the style of reporting speeches in English, where only the person and tense are changed.)

The Subjunctive in the subordinate clauses of Indirect Discourse has no significance except to make more distinct the fact that these clauses are subordinate; consequently no direct connection has been traced between them and the uses of the mood in simple

sentences. It is probable that the subjunctive in indirect questions (§ 574), in informal indirect discourse (§ 592), and in clauses of the integral part (§ 593） represents the earliest steps of a movement by which the subjunctive became in some degree a mood of subordination.

The Subjunctive standing for hortatory forms of speech in Indirect Discourse is simply the usual hortatory subjunctive, with only a change of person and tense (if necessary), as in the reporter's style.

A Direct Quotation gives the exact words of the original speaker or writer ( Ōrātiō Rēcta ).

An Indirect Quotation adapts the words of the speaker or writer to the construction of the sentence in which they are quoted ( Ōrātiō Oblīqua ). The term Indirect Discourse ( ōrātiō oblīqua ) is used in two senses. In the wider sense it includes all clauses—of whatever kind—which express the words or thought of any person indirectly , that is, in a form different from that in which the person said the words or conceived the thought. In the narrower sense the term Indirect Discourse is restricted to those cases in which some complete proposition is cited in the form of an Indirect Quotation, which may be extended to a narrative or an address of any length, as in the speeches reported by Cæsar and Livy. In this book the term is used in the restricted sense.

FORMAL INDIRECT DISCOURSE

Verbs and other expressions of knowing, thinking, telling, and perceiving, Such are: (1) knowing , sciō , cōgnōscō , compertum habeō , etc.; (2) thinking , putō , exīstimō , arbitror , etc.; (3) telling , dīcō , nūntiō , referō , polliceor , prōmittō , certiōrem faciō , etc.; (4) perceiving , sentiō , comperiō , videō , audiō , etc. So in general any word that denotes thought or mental and visual perception or their expression may govern the Indirect Discourse. govern the Indirect Discourse. Inquam , said I (etc.) takes the Direct Discourse except in poetry.

Declaratory Sentences in Indirect Discourse

In Indirect Discourse the main clause of a Declaratory Sentence is put in the Infinitive with Subject Accusative. All subordinate clauses take the Subjunctive:— sciō mē paene incrēdibilem rem pollicērī (B. C. 3.86) , I know that I am promising an almost incredible thing. [Direct: polliceor .]

nōn arbitror tē ita sentīre (Fam. 10.26.2) , I do not suppose that you feel thus. [Direct: sentīs .]

spērō mē līberātum [esse] dē metū; (Tusc. 2.67), I trust I have been freed from fear. [Direct: līberātus sum .]

[dīcit] esse nōn nūllōs quōrum auctōritās plūrimum valeat (B. G. 1.17) , he says there are some, whose influence most prevails. [Direct: sunt nōn nūllī ... valet.]

nisi iūrāsset, scelus sē factūrum [esse] arbitrābātur (Verr. 2.1.123) , he thought he should incur guilt, unless he should take the oath. [Direct: nisi iūrāverō , faciam .]

The verb of saying etc. is often not expressed, but implied in some word or in the general drift of the sentence:— cōnsulis alterīus nōmen invīsum cīvitātī fuit: nimium Tarquiniōs rēgnō adsuēsse; initium ā Prīscō factum; rēgnāsse dein Ser. Tullium, etc. (Liv. 2.2) , the name of the other consul was hateful to the state; the Tarquins (they thought) had become too much accustomed to royal power, etc. [Here invīsum implies a thought, and this thought is added in the form of Indirect Discourse.]

ōrantēs ut urbibus saltem—iam enim agrōs dēplōrātōs esse—opem senātus ferret (id. 41.6), praying that the senate would at least bring aid to the cities—for the fields [they said] were already given up as lost.

The verb negō, deny, is commonly used in preference to dīcō with a negative:— [Stōicī] negant quidquam [esse] bonum nisi quod honestum sit (Fin. 2.68) , the Stoics assert that nothing is good but what is right.

Verbs of promising, hoping, expecting, threatening, swearing, and the like, regularly take the construction of Indirect Discourse, contrary to the English idiom:— minātur sēsē abīre (Pl. Asin. 604) , he threatens to go away. [Direct: abeō, I am going away.]

spērant sē maximum frūctum esse captūrōs (Lael. 79) , they hope to gain the utmost advantage. [Direct: capiēmus .]

spērat sē absolūtum īrī (Sull. 21) , he hopes that he shall be acquitted. [Direct: absolvar .]

quem inimīcissimum futūrum esse prōmittō ac spondeō; (Mur. 90), who I promise and warrant will be the bitterest of enemies. [Direct: erit .]

dolor fortitūdinem sē dēbilitātūrum minātur (Tusc. 5.76) , pain threatens to wear down fortitude. [Direct: dēbilitābō .]

cōnfīdō mē quod velim facile ā tē impetrātūrum (Fam. 11.16.1) , I trust I shall easily obtain from you what I wish. [Direct: quod volō , impetrābō .]

These verbs, however, often take a simple Complementary Infinitive (§ 456 ) So regularly in early Latin (except spērō ):— Compare the Greek aorist infinitive after similar verbs. pollicentur obsidēs dare (B. G. 4.21) , they promise to give hostages.

prōmīsī dōlium vīnī dare (Pl. Cist. 542) , I promised to give a jar of wine.

Some verbs and expressions may be used either as verbs of saying, or as verbs of commanding, effecting, and the like. These take as their object either an Infinitive with subject accusative or a Substantive clause of Purpose or Result, according to the sense.

Infinitive with Subject Accusative (Indirect Discourse): — laudem sapientiae statuōesse maximam (Fam. 5.13) , I hold that the glory of wisdom is the greatest. [Indirect Discourse.]

rēs ipsa monēbat tempus esse (Att. 10.8.1) , the thing itself warned that it was time. [Cf. monēre ut, warn to do something.]

fac mihi esse persuāsum (N. D. 1.75) , suppose that I am persuaded of that. [Cf. facere ut, bring it about that.]

hōc volunt persuādēre,nōn interīre animās (B. G. 6.14) , they wish to convince that souls do not perish.

Subjunctive (Substantive Clause of Purpose or Result):— statuunt ut decem mīlia hominum mittantur (B. G. 7.21) , they resolve that 10,000 men shall be sent. [Purpose clause (cf. § 563).]

huic persuādetutī ad hostīs trānseat (id. 3.18), he persuades him to pass over to the enemy.

Pompêius suīs praedīxerat ut Caesaris impetum exciperent (B. C. 3.92) , Pompey had instructed his men beforehand to await Cæsar's attack.

dēnūntiāvitut essent animō parātī; (id. 3.86), he bade them be alert and steadfast (ready in spirit).

The infinitive with subject accusative in this construction is Indirect Discourse, and is to be distinguished from the simple infinitive sometimes found with these verbs instead of a subjunctive clause (§ 563 . d ).

The Subject Accusative of the Infinitive is regularly expressed in Indirect Discourse, even if it is wanting in the direct: ōrātor sum, I am an orator; dīcit sē esse ōrātōrem, he says he is an orator.

But the subject is often omitted if easily understood:— īgnōscere imprūdentiae dīxit (B. G. 4.27) , he said he pardoned their rashness.

eadem ab aliīs quaerit: reperit esse vēra (id. 1.18), he inquires about these same things from others; he finds that they are true.

After a relative, or quam ( than ), if the verb would be the same as that of the main clause, it is usually omitted, and its subject is attracted into the accusative:— tē suspicor eīsdem rēbus quibus mē ipsum commovērī; (Cat. M. 1), I suspect that you are disturbed by the same things as I.

cōnfīdō tamen haec quoque tibi nōn minus grāta quam ipsōs librōs futūra (Plin. Ep. 3.5.20) , I trust that these facts too will be no less pleasing to you than the books themselves.

In poetry, by a Greek idiom, a Predicate Noun or Adjective in the indirect discourse sometimes agrees with the subject of the main verb:— vir bonus et sapiēns ait esse parātus (Hor. Ep. 1.7.22) , a good and wise man says he is prepared, etc. [In prose: ait sē esse parātum .]

sēnsit mediōs dēlāpsus in hostīs (Aen. 2.377) , he found himself fallen among the foe. [In prose: sē esse dēlāpsum .]

When the verb of saying etc. is passive, the construction may be either Personal or Impersonal. But the Personal construction is more common and is regularly used in the tenses of incomplete action:— beātē vīxisse videor (Lael. 15) , I seem to have lived happily.

Epamīnōndās fidibus praeclārē cecinisse dīcitur (Tusc. 1.4) , Epaminondas is said to have played excellently on the lyre.

multī idem factūrī esse dīcuntur (Fam. 16.12.4) , many are said to be about to do the same thing. [Active: dīcunt multōs factūrōs ( esse ).]

prīmī trāduntur arte quādam verba vīnxisse (Or. 40) , they first are related to have joined words with a certain skill.

Bibulus audiēbātur esse in Syriā; (Att. 5.18), it was heard that Bibulus was in Syria (Bibulus was heard, etc.). [Direct: Bibulus est .]

cēterae Illyricī legiōnēs secūtūrae spērābantur (Tac. H. 2.74) , the rest of the legions of Illyricum were expected to follow.

vidēmur enim quiētūrī fuisse, nisi essēmus lacessītī (De Or. 2.230) , it seems that we should have kept quiet, if we had not been molested (we seem, etc.). [Direct: quiēssēmus ... nisi essēmus lacessītī.]

The poets and later writers extend the personal use of the passive to verbs which are not properly verba sentiendī etc.: as,— colligor dominae placuisse (Ov. Am. 2.6.61), it is gathered [from this memorial] that I pleased my mistress.

In the compound tenses of verbs of saying etc., the impersonal construction is more common, and with the gerundive is regular:— trāditum est etiam Homērum caecum fuisse (Tusc. 5.114) , it is a tradition, too, that Homer was blind.

ubi tyrannus est, ibi nōn vitiōsam, sed dīcendum est plānē nūllam esse rem pūblicam (Rep. 3.43) , where there is a tyrant, it must be said, not that the commonwealth is evil, but that it does not exist at all.

An indirect narrative begun in the personal construction may be continued with the Infinitive and Accusative (as De Or. 2.299 ; Liv. 5.41.9 ).

Subordinate Clauses in Indirect Discourse

A Subordinate Clause merely explanatory, or containing statements which are regarded as true independently of the quotation, takes the Indicative:— quis neget haec omnia quae vidēmus deōrum potestāte administrārī; (Cat. 3.21), who can deny that all these things we see are ruled by the power of the gods?

cûius ingeniō putābat ea quae gesserat posse celebrārī; (Arch. 20), by whose genius he thought that those deeds which he had done could be celebrated. [Here the fact expressed by quae gesserat , though not explanatory, is felt to be true without regard to the quotation: quae gessisset would mean, what Marius claimed to have done.]

Such a clause in the indicative is not regarded as a part of the Indirect Discourse; but it often depends merely upon the feeling of the writer whether he shall use the Indicative or the Subjunctive (cf. §§ 591 - 593 ).

A subordinate clause in Indirect Discourse occasionally takes the Indicative when the fact is emphasized:— factum êius hostis perīculum ... cum, Cimbrīs et Teutonīs ... pulsīs, nōn minōrem laudem exercitus quam ipse imperātor meritus vidēbātur (B. G. 1.40) , that a trial of this enemy had been made when, on the defeat of the Cimbri and Teutoni, the army seemed to have deserved no less credit than the commander himself.

Clauses introduced by a relative which is equivalent to a demonstrative with a conjunction are not properly subordinate, and hence take the Accusative and Infinitive in Indirect Discourse (see § 308. f):— Mārcellus requīsīsse dīcitur Archimēdem illum, quem cum audīsset interfectum permolestē tulisse (Verr. 4.131) , Marcellus is said to have sought for Archimedes, and when he heard that he was slain, to have been greatly distressed. [ quem = et eum .]

cēnsent ūnum quemque nostrum mundī esse partem, ex quō [=et ex eō] illud nātūrā cōnsequī (Fin. 3.64) , they say that each one of us is a part of the universe, from which this naturally follows.

Really subordinate clauses occasionally take the accusative and infinitive. as, quem ad modum sī nōn dēdātur obses prō ruptō foedus sē habitūrum , sīc dēditam inviolātam ad suōs remissūrum (Liv. 2.13) , [he says] as in case the hostage is not given up he shall consider the treaty as broken, so if given up he will return her unharmed to her friends.

The infinitive construction is regularly continued after a comparative with quam :— addit sē prius occīsum īrī ab eō quam mē violātum īrī (Att. 2.20.2) , he adds that he himself will be killed by him, before I shall be injured.

nōnne adfīrmāvī quidvīs mē potius perpessūrum quam ex Ītaliā exitūrum (Fam. 2.16.3) , did I not assert that I would endure anything rather than leave Italy?

The subjunctive with or without ut also occurs with quam (see § 535 . c ).

Tenses of the Infinitive in Indirect Discourse

The Present, the Perfect, or the Future Infinitive For various ways of expressing the Future Infinitive, see § 164 . 3. c. is used in Indirect Discourse, according as the time indicated is present, past, or future with reference to the verb of saying etc. by which the Indirect Discourse is introduced:—

cadō, I am falling.

dīcit sē cadere, he says he is falling.

dīxit sē cadere, he said he was falling.

cadēbam, I was falling; cecidī, I fell, have fallen; cecideram, I had fallen.

dīcit sē cecidisse, he says he was falling, fell, has fallen, had fallen.

dīxit sē cecidisse, he said he fell, had fallen.

cadam, I shall fall.

dīcit sē cāsūrum [ esse ], he says he shall fall.

dīxit sē cāsūrum [ esse ], he said he should fall.

ceciderō, I shall have fallen.

dīcit fore ut ceciderit [rare], he says he shall have fallen.

dīxit fore ut cecidisset [rare], he said he should have fallen.

All varieties of past time are usually expressed in Indirect Discourse by the Perfect Infinitive, which may stand for the Imperfect, the Perfect, or the Pluperfect Indicative of the Direct. Continued or repeated action in past time is sometimes expressed by the Present Infinitive, which in such cases stands for the Imperfect Indicative of the Direct Discourse and is often called the Imperfect Infinitive.

This is the regular construction after meminī when referring to a matter of actual experience or observation: as,tē meminī haec dīcere, I remember your saying this (that you said this). [Direct: dīxistī or dīcēbās .]

The present infinitive posse often has a future sense:— totīus Galliae sēsē potīrī posse spērant (B. G. 1.3) , they hope that they shall be able to get possession of all Gaul.

Tenses of the Subjunctive in Indirect Discourse

The tenses of the Subjunctive in Indirect Discourse follow the rule for the Sequence of Tenses (§ 482). They depend for their sequence on the verb of saying etc. by which the Indirect Discourse is introduced.

Thus in the sentence, dīxit sē Rōmam itūrum ut cōnsulem vidēret, he said he should go to Rome in order that he might see the consul, vidēret follows the sequence of dīxit without regard to the Future Infinitive, itūrum [ esse ], on which it directly depends. This rule applies to the subjunctive in subordinate clauses, to that which stands for the imperative etc. (see examples, § 588 ), and to that in questions (§ 586 ).

A subjunctive depending on a Perfect Infinitive is often in the Imperfect or Pluperfect, even if the verb of saying etc. is in a primary tense (cf. § 485. j); so regularly when these tenses would have been used in Direct Discourse:—

Tarquinium dīxisse ferunt tum exsulantem sē intellēxisse quōs fīdōs amīcōs habuisset (Lael. 53) , they tell us that Tarquin said that then in his exile he had found out what faithful friends he had had. [Here the main verb of saying, ferunt , is primary, but the time is carried back by dīxisse and intellēxisse , and the sequence then becomes secondary.]

tantum prōfēcisse vidēmur ut ā Graecīs nē verbōrum quidem cōpiā vincerēmur (N. D. 1.8) , we seem to have advanced so far that even in abundance of words we ARE not surpassed by the Greeks.

The proper sequence may be seen, in each case, by turning the Perfect Infinitive into that tense of the Indicative which it represents. Thus, if it stands for an imperfect or an historical perfect , the sequence will be secondary; if it stands for a perfect definite , the sequence may be either primary or secondary (§ 485 . a ). The so-called imperfect infinitive after meminī (§ 584 . a. N.) takes the secondary sequence: as, ad mē adīre quōsdam meminī , quī dīcerent (Fam. 3.10.6) , I remember that some persons visited me, to tell me , etc.

The Present and Perfect Subjunctive are often used in dependent clauses of the Indirect Discourse even when the verb of saying etc. is in a secondary tense:— dīcēbant ... totidem Nerviōs (pollicērī) quī longissimē absint (B. G. 2.4) , they said that the Nervii, who live farthest off, promised as many.

This construction comes from the tendency of language to refer all time in narration to the time of the speaker ( repraesentātiō ). In the course of a long pas sage in the Indirect Discourse the tenses of the subjunctive often vary, sometimes following the sequence, and sometimes affected by repraesentātiō . Examples may be seen in B. G. 1.13 , 7.20, etc.

Certain constructions are never affected by repraesentātiō. Such are the Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive with cum temporal, antequam , and priusquam .

Questions in Indirect Discourse

A Question in Indirect Discourse may be either in the Subjunctive or in the Infinitive with Subject Accusative.

A real question, asking for an answer, is generally put in the Subjunctive; a rhetorical question, asked for effect and implying its own answer, is put in the Infinitive:— quid sibi vellet? cūr in suās possessiōnēs venīret (B. G. 1.44) , what did he want? why did he come into his territories? [Real question. Direct: quid vīs ? cūr venīs ?]

num recentium iniūriārum memoriam [sē] dēpōnere posse (id. 1.14), could he lay aside the memory of recent wrongs? [Rhetorical Question. Direct: num possum ?]

quem sīgnum datūrum fugientibus? quem ausūrum Alexandrō succēdere (Q. C. 3.5.7) , who will give the signal on the retreat? who will dare succeed Alexander? [Rhetorical. Direct: quis dabit ... audēbit .]

No sharp line can be drawn between the Subjunctive and the Infinitive in questions in the Indirect Discourse. Whether the question is to be regarded as rhetorical or real often depends merely on the writer's point of view:— utrum partem rēgnī petītūrum esse, an tōtum ēreptūrum (Liv. 45.19.15) , will you ask part of the regal power (he said), or seize the whole?

quid tandem praetōrī faciendum fuisse (id. 31.48), what, pray, ought a prætor to have done?

quid repente factum [esse] cūr, etc. (id. 34.54), what had suddenly happened, that, etc.?

Questions coming immediately after a verb of asking are treated as Indirect Questions and take the Subjunctive (see § 574 ). This is true even when the verb of asking serves also to introduce a passage in the Indirect Discourse. The question may be either real or rhetorical. See quaesīvit , etc. ( Liv. 37.15 ).

For the use of tenses, see § 585.

A Deliberative Subjunctive (§ 444) in the Direct Discourse is always retained in the Indirect:— cūr aliquōs ex suīs āmitteret (B. C. 1.72) , why (thought he) should he lose some of his men? [Direct: cūr āmittam ?]

Commands in Indirect Discourse

All Imperative forms of speech take the Subjunctive in Indirect Discourse:— reminīscerētur veteris incommodī; (B. G. 1.13), remember (said he) the ancient disaster. [Direct: reminīscere .]

fīnem faciat (id. 1.20), let him make an end. [Direct: fac .]

ferrent opem, adiuvārent (Liv. 2.6) , let them bring aid, let them help.

This rule applies not only to the Imperative of the direct discourse, but to the Hortatory and the Optative Subjunctive as well. Though these subjunctives stand for independent clauses of the direct discourse, they follow the rule for the sequence of tenses, being in fact dependent on the verb of saying etc. (cf. §§ 483 , 585). A Prohibition in the Indirect Discourse is regularly expressed by nē with the present or imperfect subjunctive, even when nōlī with the infinitive would be used in the Direct: as,— nē perturbārentur (B. G. 7.29) , do not (he said) be troubled. [Direct: nōlīte perturbārī . But sometimes nōllet is found in Indirect Discourse.]

Conditions in Indirect Discourse

Conditional sentences in Indirect Discourse are expressed as follows:—

The Protasis, being a subordinate clause, is always in the Subjunctive.

The Apodosis, if independent and not hortatory or optative, is always in some form of the Infinitive.

The Present Subjunctive in the apodosis of less vivid future conditions (§ 516. b) becomes the Future Infinitive like the Future Indicative in the apodosis of more vivid future conditions.

Thus there is no distinction between more and less vivid future conditions in the Indirect Discourse.

Examples of Conditional Sentences in Indirect Discourse are—

Simple Present Condition (§ 515):— （dīxit） sī ipse populō Rōmānō nōnpraescrīberet quem ad modum suō iūre ūterētur, nōnoportēresēsē ā populō Rōmānō in suō iūre impedīrī (B. G. 1.36) , he said that if he did not dictate to the Roman people how they should use their rights, he ought not to be interfered with by the Roman people in the exercise of his rights. [Direct: sī nōn praescrībō ... nōn oportet .]

praedicāvit ... sī pāce ūtīvelint, inīquumesse, etc. (id. 1.44), he asserted that if they wished to enjoy peace, it was unfair, etc. [Direct: sī volunt ... est . Present tense kept by repraesentātiō (§ 585. b. N.).]

Simple Past Condition (§ 515):— nōn dīcam nē illud quidem, sī maximē in culpāfuerit Apollōnius, tamen in hominem honestissimae cīvitātis honestissimum tam graviter animadvertī, causā indictā, nōn oportuisse (Verr. 5.20) , I will not say this either, that, even if Apollonius was very greatly in fault, still an honorable man from an honorable state ought not to have been punished so severely without having his case heard. [Direct: sī fuit ... nōn oportuit .]

Future Conditions (§ 516):— （dīxit） quod sī praetereā nēmō sequātur, tamen sē cum sōlā decimā legiōne itūrum (B. G. 1.40) , but if nobody else should follow, still he would go with the tenth legion alone. [Direct: sī sequētur ... ībō . Present tense by repraesentātiō (§ 585. b. N.).]

Haeduīs sē obsidēs redditūrum nōn esse, neque eīs ... bellumillātūrum,sī in eōmanērent, quod convēnisset, stipendiumque quotannīs penderent: sī id nōnfēcissent, longē eīs frāternum nōmen populī Rōmānī āfutūrum (id. 1.36), he said that he would not give up the hostages to the Haedui, but would not make war upon them if they observed the agreement which had been made, and paid tribute yearly; but that, if they should not do this, the name of brothers to the Roman people would be far from aiding them. [Direct: reddam ... īnferam ... sī manēbunt ... pendent : sī nōn fēcerint ... aberit .]

d Datamēs ut audīvit, sēnsit, sī in turbam exīsset ab homine tam necessāriō sē relictum, futūrum[esse] utcēterī cōnsilium sequantur (Nep. Dat. 6), when Datames heard this, he saw that, if it should get abroad that he had been abandoned by a man so closely connected with him, everybody else would follow his example. [Direct: sī exierit ... sequentur .]

（putāvērunt) nisi mē cīvitāte expulissent, obtinēre sē nōn posse licentiam cupiditātum suārum (Att. 10.4) , they thought that unless they drove me out of the state, they could not have free play for their desires. [Direct: nisi ( Cicerōnem ) expulerimus , obtinēre nōn poterimus .]

In changing a Condition contrary to fact (§ 517) into the Indirect Discourse, the following points require notice:—

The Protasis always remains unchanged in tense.

The Apodosis, if active, takes a peculiar infinitive form, made by combining the Participle in -ūrus with fuisse .

If the verb of the Apodosis is passive or has no supine stem, the periphrasis futūrum fuisse ut (with the Imperfect Subjunctive) must be used.

An Indicative in the Apodosis becomes a Perfect Infinitive.

Examples are:— nec sē superstitem fīliae futūrum fuisse, nisi spem ulcīscendae mortis êius in auxiliō commīlitōnum habuisset (Liv. 3.50.7) , and that he should not now be a survivor, etc., unless he had had hope, etc. [Direct: nōn superstes essem , nisi habuissem .]

illud Asia cōgitet, nūllam ā sē neque bellī externī neque discordiārum domesticārum calamitātem āfutūram fuisse, sī hōc imperiō nōn tenērētur (Q. Fr. 1.1.34) , let Asia (personified) think of this, that no disaster, etc., would not be hers, if she were not held by this government. [Direct: abesset , sī nōn tenērer .]

quid inimīcitiārum crēditis [mē] exceptūrum fuisse, sī īnsontīs lacessīssem (Q. C. 6.10.18) , what enmities do you think I should have incurred, if I had wantonly assailed the innocent? [excēpissem ... sī lacessīssem.]

invītum sē dīcere, nec dictūrum fuisse, nī cāritās reī pūblicae vinceret (Liv. 2.2) , that he spoke unwillingly and should not have spoken, did not love for the state prevail. [Direct: nec dīxissem ... nī vinceret .]

nisi eō tempore quīdam nūntiī dē Caesaris victōriā ... essent allātī, exīstimābant plērīque futūrum fuisse utī [oppidum] āmitterētur (B. C. 3.101) , most people thought that unless at that time reports of Cæsar's victory had been brought, the town would have been lost. [Direct: nisi essent allātī ... āmissum esset .]

quōrum sī aetās potuisset esse longinquior, futūrum fuisse ut omnibus perfectīs artibus hominum vīta ērudīrētur (Tusc. 3.69) , if life could have been longer, human existence would have been embellished by every art in its perfection. [Direct: sī potuisset ... ērudīta esset .]

at plērīque exīstimant, sī ācrius īnsequī voluisset, bellum eō diē potuisse fīnīre (B. C. 3.51) , but most people think that, if he had chosen to follow up the pursuit more vigorously, he could have ended the war on that day. [Direct: sī voluisset ... potuit .]

Caesar respondit ... sī alicûius iniūriae sibi cōnscius fuisset, nōn fuisse difficile cavēre (B. G. 1.14) , Cæsar replied that if [the Roman people] had been aware of any wrong act, it would not have been hard for them to take precautions. [Direct: sī fuisset , nōn difficile fuit (§ 517. c).]

In Indirect Discourse Present Conditions contrary to fact are not distinguished in the apodosis from Past Conditions contrary to fact, but the protasis may keep them distinct. The periphrasis futūrum fuisse ut is sometimes used from choice when there is no necessity for resorting to it, but not in Cæsar or Cicero. Very rarely the Future Infinitive is used in the Indirect Discourse to express the Apodosis of a Present Condition contrary to fact. Only four or five examples of this use occur in classic authors: as, Titurius clāmābat sī Caesar adesset neque Carnutēs , etc., neque Eburōnēs tantā cum contemptiōne nostra ad castra ventūrōs esse (B. G. 5.29) , Titurius cried out that if Cæsar were present, neither would the Carnutes , etc., nor would the Eburones be coming to our camp with such contempt , [Direct: sī adesset ... venīrent .]

The following example illustrates some of the foregoing principles in a connected address:—

INTERMEDIATE CLAUSES

A Subordinate clause takes the Subjunctive—

When it expresses the thought of some other person than the speaker or writer (Informal Indirect Discourse), or

When it is an integral part of a Subjunctive clause or equivalent Infinitive (Attraction).

See note on Indirect Discourse (§ 577 ).

Informal Indirect Discourse

A Subordinate Clause takes the Subjunctive when it expresses the thought of some other person than the writer or speaker:—

When the clause depends upon another containing a wish, a command, or a question, expressed indirectly, though not strictly in the form of Indirect Discourse:— animal sentit quid sit quod deceat (Off. 1.14) , an animal feels what it is that is fit.

huic imperat quāspossit adeat cīvitātēs (B. G. 4.21) , he orders him to visit what states he can.

hunc sibi ex animō scrūpulum, quī sē diēs noctīsquestimulat ac pungit, ut ēvellātis postulat (Rosc. Am. 6) , he begs you to pluck from his heart this doubt that goads and stings him day and night. [Here the relative clause is not a part of the Purpose expressed in ēvellātis , but is an assertion made by the subject of postulat .]

When the main clause of a quotation is merged in the verb of saying, or some modifier of it:— sī quid dē hīs rēbus dīcerevellet, fēcī potestātem (Cat. 3.11) , if he wished to say anything about these matters, I gave him a chance.

tulit dē caede quae in Appiā viā facta esset (Mil. 15) , he passed a law concerning the murder which (in the language of the bill) took place in the Appian Way.

nisi restituissentstatuās, vehementer minātur (Verr. 2.162) , he threatens them violently unless they should restore the statues. [Here the main clause, “that he will inflict punishment,” is contained in minātur .]

iīs auxilium suum pollicitus sī ab Suēbīs premerentur (B. G. 4.19) , he promised them his aid if they should be molested by the Suevi. [= pollicitus sē auxilium lātūrum , etc.]

prohibitiō tollendī, nisi pactus esset, vim adhibēbat pactiōnī; (Verr. 3.37), the forbidding to take away unless he came to terms gave force to the bargain.

When a reason or an explanatory fact is introduced by a relative or by quod (rarely quia ) (see § 540):— Paetus omnīs librōs quōsfrāter suusrelīquisset mihi dōnāvit (Att. 2.1.12) , Pœtus presented to me all the books which (he said) his brother had left.

Under this head even what the speaker himself thought under other circumstances may have the Subjunctive. So also with quod even the verb of saying may be in the Subjunctive (§ 540 . N.2). Here belong also nōn quia , nōn quod , introducing a reason expressly to deny it. (See § 540 . N.3.)

Subjunctive of Integral Part (Attraction)

A clause depending upon a Subjunctive clause or an equivalent Infinitive will itself take the Subjunctive if regarded as an integral part of that clause:— The subjunctive in this use is of the same nature as the subjunctive in the main clause. A dependent clause in a clause of purpose is really a part of the purpose, as is seen from the use of should and other auxiliaries in English. In a result clause this is less clear, but the result construction is a branch of the characteristic (§ 534 ), to which category the dependent clause in this case evidently belongs when it takes the subjunctive. imperat, dum rēs iūdicētur, hominem adservent: cum iūdicāta sit, ad sē ut addūcant (Verr. 3.55) , he orders them, till the affair should be decided, to keep the man; when it is judged, to bring him to him.

etenim quis tam dissolūtō animō est, quī haec cum videat, tacēre ac neglegere possit (Rosc. Am. 32) , for who is so reckless of spirit that, when he sees these things, he can keep silent and pass them by ?

mōs est Athēnīs laudārī in cōntiōne eōs quī sint in proeliīs interfectī; (Or. 151), it is the custom at Athens for those to be publicly eulogized who have been slain in battle. [Here laudārī is equivalent to ut laudentur .]

But a dependent clause may be closely connected grammatically with a Subjunctive or Infinitive clause, and still take the Indicative, if it is not regarded as a necessary logical part of that clause:— quōdam modō postulat ut, quem ad modum est, sīc etiam appellētur, tyrannus (Att. 10.4.2) , in a manner he demands that as he is, so he may be called, a tyrant.

nātūra fert ut eīs faveāmus quī eadem perīcula quibus nōs perfūnctī sumus ingrediuntur (Mur. 4) , nature prompts us to feel friendly towards those who are entering on the same dangers which we have passed through.

nē hostēs, quod tantum multitūdine poterant, suōs circumvenīre possent (B. G. 2.8) , lest the enemy, because they were so strong in numbers, should be able to surround his men.

sī mea in tē essent officia sōlum tanta quanta magis ā tē ipsō praedicārī quam ā mē ponderārī solent, verēcundius ā tē ... peterem (Fam. 2.6) , if my good services to you were only so great as they are wont rather to be called by you than to be estimated by me, I should, etc.

The use of the Indicative in such clauses sometimes serves to emphasize the fact , as true independently of the statement contained in the subjunctive or infinitive clause. But in many cases no such distinction is perceptible. It is often difficult to distinguish between Informal Indirect Discourse and the Integral Part. Thus in imperāvit ut ea fierent quae opus essent , essent may stand for sunt , and then will be Indirect Discourse, being a part of the thought, but not a part of the order; or it may stand for erunt , and then will be Integral Part, being a part of the order itself. The difficulty of making the distinction in such cases is evidence of the close relationship between these two constructions.

IMPORTANT RULES OF SYNTAX

A noun used to describe another, and denoting the same person or thing, agrees with it in Case (§ 282).

Adjectives, Adjective Pronouns, and Participles agree with their nouns in Gender, Number, and Case (§ 286).

Superlatives (more rarely Comparatives) denoting order and succession—also medius , ( cēterus ), reliquus—usually designate not what object, but what part of it, is meant (§ 293).

The Personal Pronouns have two forms for the genitive plural, that in -um being used partitively, and that in -ī oftenest objectively (§ 295. b).

The Reflexive Pronoun ( sē ), and usually the corresponding possessive ( suus ), are used in the predicate to refer to the subject of the sentence or clause (§ 299).

To express Possession and similar ideas the Possessive Pronouns must be used, not the genitive of the personal or reflexive pronouns (§ 302. a).

A Possessive Pronoun or an Adjective implying possession may take an appositive in the genitive case agreeing in gender, number, and case with an implied noun or pronoun (§ 302. e).

A Relative Pronoun agrees with its Antecedent in Gender and Number, but its Case depends on its construction in the clause in which it stands (§ 305).

A Finite Verb agrees with its Subject in Number and Person (§ 316).

Adverbs are used to modify Verbs, Adjectives, and other Adverbs (§ 321).

A Question of simple fact, requiring the answer yes or no, is formed by adding the enclicic -ne to the emphatic word (§ 332).

When the enclitic -ne is added to a negative word,—as in nōnne ,— an affirmative answer is expected. The particle num suggests a negative answer (§ 332. b).

The Subject of a finite verb is in the Nominative (§ 339).

The Vocative is the case of direct address (§ 340).

A noun used to limit or define another, and not meaning the same person or thing, is put in the Genitive (§ 342).

The Possessive Genitive denotes the person or thing to which an object, quality, feeling, or action belongs (§ 343).

The genitive may denote the Substance or Material of which a thing consists (§ 344).

The genitive is used to denote Quality, but only when the quality is modified by an adjective (§ 345).

Words denoting a part are followed by the Genitive of the whole to which the part belongs (Partitive Genitive, § 346).

Nouns of action, agency, and feeling govern the Genitive of the object (Objective Genitive, § 348).

Adjectives denoting desire, knowledge, memory, fulness, power, sharing, guilt, and their opposites; participles in -ns when used as adjectives; and verbals in -āx, govern the Genitive (§ 349. a, b, c).

Verbs of remembering and forgetting take either the Accusative or the Genitive of the object (§ 350).

Verbs of reminding take with the Accusative of the person a Genitive of the thing (§ 351).

Verbs of accusing, condemning, and acquitting take the Genitive of the charge or penalty（§ 352).

The Dative is used of the object indirectly affected by an action (Indirect Object, § 361).

Many verbs signifying to favor, help, please, trust, and their contraries; also, to believe, persuade, command, obey, serve, resist, envy, threaten, pardon, and spare, take the Dative (§ 367).

Many verbs compounded with ad , ante , con, in, inter , ob , post, prae , prō , sub , super, and some with circum , admit the Dative of the indirect object (§ 370).

The Dative is used with esse and similar words to denote Possession (§ 373).

The Dative of the Agent is used with the Gerundive, to denote the person on whom the necessity rests (§ 374).

The Dative often depends, not on any particular word, but on the general meaning of the sentence (Dative of Reference, § 376).

Many verbs of taking away and the like take the Dative (especially of a person) instead of the Ablative of Separation (§ 381).

The Dative is used to denote the Purpose or End, often with another Dative of the person or thing affected (§ 382).

The Dative is used with adjectives (and a few adverbs) of fitness, nearness, likeness, service, inclination, and their opposites (§ 384).

The Direct Object of a transitive verb is put in the Accusative (§ 387).

An intransitive verb often takes the Accusative of a noun of kindred meaning, usually modified by an adjective or in some other manner (Cognate Accusative, § 390).

Verbs of naming, choosing, appointing, making, esteeming, showing, and the like, may take a Predicate Accusative along with the direct object (§ 393).

Transitive verbs compounded with prepositions sometimes take (in addition to the direct object) a Secondary Object, originally governed by the preposition (§ 394).

Some verbs of asking and teaching may take two Accusatives, one of the Person, and the other of the Thing (§ 396).

The subject of an Infinitive is in the Accusative (§ 397. e).

Duration of Time and Extent of Space are expressed by the Accusative (§§ 424. c, 425).

Words signifying separation or privation are followed by the Ablative (Ablative of Separation, § 400).

The Ablative, usually with a preposition, is used to denote the source from which anything is derived or the material of which it consists (§ 403).

The Ablative, with or without a preposition, is used to express cause (§ 404).

The Voluntary Agent after a passive verb is expressed by the Ablative with ā or ab (§ 405).

The Comparative degree is often followed by the Ablative signifying than (§ 406).

The Comparative may be followed by quam, than. When quam is used, the two things compared are put in the same case (§ 407).

The Ablative is used to denote the means or instrument of an action (§ 409).

The deponents, ūtor , fruor , fungor , potior , and vēscor , with several of their compounds, govern the Ablative (§ 410).

Opus and ūsus , signifying need, are followed by the Ablative (§ 411).

The manner of an action is denoted by the Ablative, usually with cum unless a limiting adjective is used with the noun (§ 412).

Accompaniment is denoted by the Ablative, regularly with cum (§ 413).

With Comparatives and words implying comparison the Ablative is used to denote the degree of difference（§ 414).

The quality of a thing is denoted by the Ablative with an adjective or genitive Modifier (§ 415).

The price of a thing is put in the Ablative (§ 416).

The Ablative of Specification denotes that in respect to which anything is or is done (§ 418).

The adjectives dīgnus and indīgnus take the Ablative (§ 418. b).

A noun or pronoun, with a participle in agreement, may be put in the Ablative to define the time or circumstances of an action (Ablative Absolute, § 419). An adjective, or a second noun, may take the place of the participle in the ablative absolute construction (§ 419. a).

Time when, or within which, is denoted by the Ablative; time how long by the Accusative (§ 423).

Relations of Place are expressed as follows:— 1. The place from which, by the Ablative with ab , dē , ex .

2. The place to which (or end of motion), by the Accusative with ad or in.

3. The place where, by the Ablative with in (Locative Ablative). (§ 426.)

With names of towns and small islands, and with domus and rūs , the relations of place are expressed as follows:— 1. The place from which, by the Ablative without a preposition.

2. The place to which, by the Accusative without a preposition.

3. The place where, by the Locative. (§ 427.)

The Hortatory Subjunctive is used in the present tense to express an exhortation, a command, or a concession.（§§ 439, 440).

The Optative Subjunctive is used to express a wish. The present tense denotes the wish as possible, the imperfect as unaccomplished in present time, the pluperfect as unaccomplished in past time (§ 441).

The Subjunctive is used in questions implying (1) doubt, indignation, or (2) an impossibility of the thing's being done (Deliberative Subjunctive, § 444).

The Potential Subjunctive is used to suggest an action as possible or conceivable（§ 446).

The Imperative is used in commands and entreaties (§ 448).

Prohibition is regularly expressed in classic prose (1) by nōlī with the Infinitive, (2) by cavē with the Present Subjunctive, (3) by nē with the Perfect Subjunctive (§ 450).

The Infinitive, with or without a subject accusative, may be used with est and similar verbs (1) as the Subject, (2) in Apposition with the subject, or (3) as a Predicate Nominative (§ 452).

Verbs which imply another action of the same subject to complete their meaning take the Infinitive without a subject accusative (Complementary Infinitive, § 456).

The Infinitive, with subject accusative, is used with verbs and other expressions of knowing, thinking, telling, and perceiving (Indirect Discourse, see § 459).

The Infinitive is often used for the Imperfect Indicative in narration, and takes a subject in the Nominative (Historical Infinitive, § 463).

SEQUENCE OF TENSES. In complex sentences, a primary tense in the main clause is followed by the Present or Perfect Subjunctive in the dependent clause; a secondary tense by the Imperfect or Pluperfect (§ 483).

Participles denote time as present, past, or future with respect to the time of the verb in their clause (§ 489).

The Gerund and the Gerundive are used, in the oblique cases, in many of the constructions of nouns (§§ 501-507).

The Supine in -um is used after verbs of motion to express Purpose (§ 509).

The Supine in -ū is used with a few adjectives and with the nouns fās , nefās , and opus , to denote Specification (§ 510).

Dum , modo , dummodo, and tantum ut , introducing a Proviso, take the Subjunctive (§ 528).

Final clauses take the Subjunctive introduced by ut ( utī ), negative nē ( ut nē ), or by a Relative Pronoun or Relative Adverb (§ 531).

A Relative Clause with the Subjunctive is often used to indicate a characteristic of the antecedent, especially where the antecedent is otherwise undefined (§ 535).

Dīgnus , indīgnus , aptus , and idōneus , take a Subjunctive clause with a relative (rarely with ut ) (§ 535. f).

Clauses of Result take the Subjunctive introduced by ut, so that (negative, ut nōn ), or by a Relative Pronoun or Relative Adverb (§ 537).

The Causal Particles quod , quia , and quoniam take the Indicative when the reason is given on the authority of the writer or speaker; the Subjunctive when the reason is given on the authority of another (§ 540).

The particles postquam ( posteāquam ), ubi , ut (ut prīmum, ut semel), simul atque ( simul ac , or simul alone) take the Indicative (usually in the perfect or the historical present） (§ 543).

A Temporal clause with cum, when, and some past tense of the Indicative dates or defines the time at which the action of the main verb occurred (§ 545).

A Temporal clause with cum and the Imperfect or Pluperfect Subjunctive describes the circumstances that accompanied or preceded the action of the main verb (§ 546).

Cum Causal or Concessive takes the Subjunctive (§ 549). For other concessive particles, see § 527.

In Indirect Discourse the main clauseof a Declaratory Sentence is put in the Infinitive with Subject Accusative. All subordinate clauses take the Subjunctive (§ 580).

The Present, the Perfect, or the Future Infinitive is used in Indirect Discourse, according as the time indicated is present, past, or future with reference to the verb of saying etc. by which the Indirect Discourse is introduced (§ 584).

In Indirect Discourse a real questionis generally put in the Subjunctive; a rhetorical question in the Infinitive (§ 586).

All Imperative forms of speech take the Subjunctive in Indirect Discourse (§ 588).

A Subordinate clause takes the Subjunctive when it expresses the thought of some other person than the writer or speaker (Informal Indirect Discourse, § 592).

A clause depending on a Subjunctive clause or an equivalent Infinitive will itself take the Subjunctive if regarded as an integral part of that clause (Attraction, § 593). For Prepositions and their cases, see §§ 220, 221.

For Conditional Sentences, see § 512 ff. (Scheme in § 514.)

For ways of expressing Purpose, see § 533.

ORDER OF WORDS

Latin differs from English in having more freedom in the arrangement of words for the purpose of showing the relative importance of the ideas in a sentence.

As in other languages, the Subject tends to stand first, the Predicate last. Thus,— Pausāniās Lacedaemonius māgnus homō sed varius in omnī genere vītae fuit (Nep. Paus. 1) , Pausanias the Lacedœmonian was a great man, but inconsistent in the whole course of his life.

This happens because, from the speaker's ordinary point of view, the subject of his discourse is the most important thing in it, as singled out from all other things to be spoken of.

There is in Latin, however, a special tendency to place the verb itself last of all, after all its modifiers. But many writers purposely avoid the monotony of this arrangement by putting the verb last but one, followed by some single word of the predicate.

In connected discourse the word most prominent in the speaker's mind comes first, and so on in order of prominence.

This relative prominence corresponds to that indicated in English by a graduated stress of voice (usually called emphasis).

The difference in emphasis expressed by difference in order of words is illustrated in the following passages:—

apud Xenophōntem autem moriēns Cȳrus mâior haec dīcit (Cat. M. 79) , IN XENOPHON too, on his death-bed Cyrus the elder utters these words.

Cȳrus quidem haec moriēns; nōs, sī placet, nostra videāmus (id. 82), CYRUS, to be sure, utters these words on his death-bed; let US, if you please, consider our own case.

Cȳrus quidem apud Xenophōntem eō sermōne, quem moriēns habuit (id. 30), CYRUS, to be sure, in Xenophon, in that speech which he uttered on his death-bed.

This stress or emphasis, however, in English does not necessarily show any violent contrast to the rest of the words in the sentence, but is infinitely varied, constantly increasing and diminishing, and often so subtle as to be unnoticed except in careful study. So, as a general rule, the precedence of words in a Latin sentence is not mechanical, but corresponds to the prominence which a good speaker would mark by skilfully managed stress of voice. A Latin written sentence, therefore, has all the clearness and expression which could be given to a spoken discourse by the best actor in English. Some exceptions to the rule will be treated later. The first chapter of Cæsar's Gallic War, if rendered so as to bring out as far as possible the shades of emphasis, would run thus:—

The more important word is never placed last for emphasis. The apparent cases of this usage (when the emphasis is not misconceived) are cases where a word is added as an afterthought, either real or affected, and so has its position not in the sentence to which it is appended, but, as it were, in a new one.

The main rules for the Order of Words are as follows:—

In any phrase the determining and most significant word comes first:—

Adjective and Noun:— omnīs hominēs decet, EVERY man ought(opposed to some who do not).

Lūcius Catilīnanōbilī genere nātus fuit, māgnāvī et animī et corporis, sedingeniō malō prāvōque (Sall. Cat. 5), Lucius Catiline was born of a NOBLE family, with GREAT force of mind and body, but with a NATURE that was evil and depraved. [Here the adjectives in the first part are the emphatic and important words, no antithesis between the nouns being as yet thought of; but in the second branch the noun is meant to be opposed to those before mentioned, and immediately takes the prominent place, as is seen by the natural English emphasis, thus making a chiasmus. So called from the Greek letter X ( chi ), on account of the criss-cross arrangement of the words. Thus, @@TABLE:0@@ (see f below). ]

Word with modifying case:— quid magis Epamīnōndam,Thēbānōrumimperātōrem, quamvictōriaeThēbānōrum cōnsulere decuit (Inv. 1.69) , what should Epaminondas, commander of the THEBANS, have aimed at more than the VICTORY of the Thebans?

lacrimā nihil citius ārēscit (id. 1.109), nothing dries quicker than a TEAR.

nēmō ferēlaudis cupidus (De Or. 1.14) , hardly any one desirous of GLORY (cf. Manil. 7, avidī laudis, EAGER for glory).

Numeral adjectives, adjectives of quantity, demonstrative, relative, and interrogative pronouns and adverbs, tend to precede the word or words to which they belong:— cum aliquā perturbātiōne (Off. 1.137) , with SOME disturbance.

hōc ūnō praestāmus (De Or. 1.32) , in THIS one thing we excel.

cēterae ferē artēs, the OTHER arts.

This happens because such words are usually emphatic; but often the words connected with them are more so, and in such cases the pronouns etc. yield the emphatic place:— causa aliqua (De Or. 1.250) , some CASE.

stilus ille tuus (id. 1.257), that well-known STYLE of yours (in an antithesis; see passage). [ Ille is idiomatic in this sense and position.]

Rōmam quae apportāta sunt (Verr. 4.121) , what were carried to ROME (in contrast to what remained at Syracuse).

When sum is used as the Substantive verb (§ 284. b), it regularly stands first, or at any rate before its subject:— est virī māgnī pūnīre sontis (Off. 1.82) , it is the duty of a great man to punish the guilty.

The verb may come first, or have a prominent position, either (1) because the idea in it is emphatic; or (2) because the predication of the whole statement is emphatic; or (3) the tense only may be emphatic:— (1) dīcēbat idem Cotta (Off. 2.59), Cotta used to SAY the same thing (opposed to others' boasting).

idem fēcit adulēscēns M. Antōnius (id. 2.49), the same thing was DONE by Mark Antony in his youth. [Opposed to dīxī just before.]

facis amīcē; (Lael. 9), you ACT kindly. [Cf. amīcē facis, you are very KIND (you act KINDLY).]

(2) prōpēnsior benīgnitās esse dēbēbit in calamitōsōs nisi forte erunt dīgnī calamitāte (Off. 2.62) , liberality ought to be readier toward the unfortunate unless perchance they REALLY DESERVE their misfortune.

praesertim cum scrībat (Panaetius) (id. 3.8), especially when he DOES SAY (in his books). [Opposed to something omitted by him.]

(3) fuimus Trōes, fuit Īlium (Aen. 2.325) , we have CEASED to be Trojans, Troy is now no MORE.

loquor autem dē commūnibus amīcitiīs (Off. 3.45) , but I am SPEAKING NOW of common friendships.

Often the connection of two emphatic phrases is brought about by giving the precedence to the most prominent part of each and leaving the less prominent parts to follow in inconspicuous places:— plūrēs solent esse causae (Off. 1.28) , there are USUALLY SEVERAL reasons.

quōs āmīsimus cīvīs, eōs Mārtis vīs perculit (Marc. 17) , WHAT fellow-citizens we have LOST, have been stricken down by the violence of war.

maximās tibi omnēs grātiās agimus (id. 33), we ALL render you the WARMEST thanks.

haec rēs ūnīus est propria Caesaris (id. 11), THIS exploit belongs to Cæsar ALONE.

obiūrgātiōnēs etiam nōn numquam incidunt necessāriae (Off. 1.136) , OCCASIONS FOR REBUKE also SOMETIMES occur which are unavoidable.

Antithesis between two pairs of ideas is indicated by placing the pairs either (1) in the same order (anaphora) or (2) in exactly the opposite order (chiasmus):— (1) rērum cōpia verbōrum cōpiam gignit (De Or. 3.125) , ABUNDANCE of MATTER produces COPIOUSNESS of EXPRESSION.

(2) lēgēs suppliciō improbōs afficiunt, dēfendunt ac tuentur bonōs (Legg. 2.13) , the laws VISIT PUNISHMENTS upon the WICKED, but the GOOD they DEFEND and PROTECT.

Chiasmus is very common in Latin, and often seems in fact the more inartificial construction. In an artless narrative one might hear, “The women were all drowned , they saved the men.” nōn igitur ūtilitātem amīcitia sed ūtilitās amīcitiam cōnsecūta est (Lael. 51) , it is not then that friendship has followed upon advantage, but advantage upon friendship. [Here the chiasmus is only grammatical, the ideas being in the parallel order.] (See also p. 395: longissimē , minimē , proximī .)

A modifier of a phrase or some part of it is often embodied within the phrase (cf. a):— dē commūnī hominum memoriā; (Tusc. 1.59), in regard to the UNIVERSAL memory of man.

A favorite order with the poets is the interlocked, by which the attribute of one pair comes between the parts of the other (synchysis):— et superiectō pavidae natārunt aequore dammae (Hor. Od. 1.2.11) .

This is often joined with chiasmus: as, arma nōndum expiātīs ūncta cruōribus ( id . 2.1.5).

Frequently unimportant words follow in the train of more emphatic ones with which they are grammatically connected, and so acquire a prominence out of proportion to their importance:— dictitābat sē hortulōs aliquōs emere velle (Off. 3.58) , he gave out that he wanted to buy some gardens. [Here aliquōs is less emphatic than emere , but precedes it on account of the emphasis on hortulōs .]

The copula is generally felt to be of so little importance that it may come in anywhere where it sounds well; but usually under cover of more emphatic words:— cōnsul ego quaesīvī, cum vōs mihi essētis in cōnsiliō; (Rep. 3.28), as consul I held an investigation in which you attended me in council.

falsum est id tōtum (id. 2.28), that is all false.

Many expressions have acquired an invariable order:— rēs pūblica; populus Rōmānus; honōris causā; pāce tantī virī.

These had, no doubt, originally an emphasis which required such an arrangement, but in the course of time have changed their shade of meaning. Thus, senātus populusque Rōmānus originally stated with emphasis the official bodies, but became fixed so as to be the only permissible form of expression.

The Romans had a fondness for emphasizing persons, so that a name or a pronoun often stands in an emphatic place:— [dīxit] vēnālīs quidem sē hortōs nōn habēre (Off. 3.58) , [said] that he did n't have any gardens for sale, to be sure.

Kindred words often come together ( figūra etymologica ):— ita sēnsim sine sēnsū aetās senēscit (Cat. M. 38) , thus gradually, without being perceived, man's life grows old.

Special Rules

The following are special rules of arrangement:—

The negative precedes the word it especially affects; but if it belongs to no one word in particular, it generally precedes the verb; if it is especially emphatic, it begins the sentence. (See example, 598. f. N.)

Itaque regularly comes first in its sentence or clause; enim , autem , vērō , quoque , never first, but usually second, sometimes third if the second word is emphatic; quidem never first, but after the emphatic word; igitur usually second; nē ... quidem include the emphatic word or words.

Inquam , inquit , are always used parenthetically, following one or more words. So often crēdō, opīnor , and in poetry sometimes precor .

(1) Prepositions (except tenus and versus) regularly precede their nouns; (2) but a monosyllabic preposition is often placed between a noun and its adjective or limiting genitive:— quem ad modum; quam ob rem; māgnō cum metū; omnibus cum cōpiīs; nūllā in rē; (cf. § 598. i).

In the arrangement of clauses, the Relative clause more often comes first in Latin, and usually contains the antecedent noun:— quōs āmīsimus cīvīs, eōs Mārtis vīs perculit (Marc. 17) , those citizens whom we have lost, etc.

Personal or demonstrative pronouns tend to stand together in the sentence:— cum vōs mihi essētis in cōnsiliō; (Rep. 3.28), when you attended me in counsel.

Structure of the Period