In Lewis and Short, I have seen that the verb pudeo is chiefly used as an impersonal verb. In fact, I have found some examples of such usage in chapter XXIII of Lingua latina per se illustrata. Familia Romana:
- Puerum pudet factī suī.
- Is quem factōrum suōrum pudet rubēre solet.
There are other sentences with "pudet" in the same chapter, but it seems to me that, in these other cases, it's not used as an impersonal verb. However, I'm not sure about that. For instance,
Nōnne tē pudet hoc fecisse?
I interpret hoc fecisse as the subject of the verb pudet: is this correct?
Another example is the following:
Profectō mē pudet hoc ā meō filiō factum esse!
In this case, I see hoc ā meō filiō factum esse as the subject of pudet, but maybe I'm wrong. I think these two clauses work as subjects because of the presence of the pronoun hoc which, I believe, is in the nominative case.
So, in the two previous sentences, I see an infinitive clause working as the subject of pudet which conveys the reason for being ashamed and an accusative direct object (tē and mē) that represents the person who is ashamed. Is this interpretation correct?
I'm also trying to understand what is the syntactic structure of the sentences with pudet being used as an impersonal verb, as (I believe) in the first two ones in this post. Other examples from Lewis and Short are:
- PLAUT. Ep. 2, 1, 1 (166) sq.: fratris me pudet.
- CIC. Verr. 1, 12, 35: pudet me non tui quidem, sed Chrysippi.
In all these cases, I see a genitive which conveys the reason for being ashamed and an accusative direct object (puerum, quem, me) that represents the person who is ashamed. If I understood correctly, it seems to me that the contents of this other question confirms what I have stated.
So, my question is: are my interpretations about syntax correct? Is that the usual way to construct sentences with the verb pudet?