Last week, in CHAT, there was a discussion on direct speech/ indirect speech/ subordinate clauses. With this in mind here's a quote from Sky-News TV-journalist, Beth Rigby, who on the 18th. of January, this year, was interviewing a senior British politician:
"The broadcasters have asked me to ask you if you are found to have lied to Parliament, will you resign."
In Latin this could be:
"duces mihi imperaverunt ut te rogarem num deprehensum iri, qui Senatui mentitus est, te abdicaturus sis."
"The bosses have ordered me to ask you if you are found-out (to be), he who has lied to the Senate, will you resign.
Is this correct?
Thanks to Joonas for advising that this translation should be approached sequentially, and not in one splurge.
The first part: "duces mihi imperaverunt ut te rogarem", direct speech followed by indirect speech is, I think, correct.
Following, the indirect question ("will you resign") introduced by "num" = "whether"/ "if"; the passive indirect "future", "num deprehensum iri" may be wrong: "if you are found (out)"; this is, in fact, the first of two indirect questions, therefore: "num deprehendaris" (passive present subjunctive) = "if you are found (out)".
And "will you resign" is the second indirect question.
The subordinate clause in the abstract: "(if you are found-out [to be]) he who has lied...".
The abstract because I did not want to keep saying: "you-this; you-that; you...". Does an abstract subordinate clause make for good Latin? I don't know.
The last bit, "te abdicaturum sis", the periphrastic use of the present subjunctive, with a future participle, for an indirect question about what someone will do, in the future; is, I think, correct.
"duces mihi imperaverunt ut te rogarem, num deprehendaris, qui Senatui mentitus est, te abdicaturus sis."
Is this translation better?