16

You have encountered a well-known problem with the Accusativus cum infinitivo (AcI) construction. There is a famous story. You have perhaps heard of king Pyrrhus, a Greek king from the Aeacid dynasty who once won a battle (at Asculum) and lost so many men in the process that he reportedly said: “One more victory like this, and we are doomed” – giving rise to ...


12

The standard choice is accusativus cum infinitivo where both the subject and object are in the accusative and the message is inherently ambiguous. You can read puto me eam amare as "I think I love her" or "I think she loves me". I would suggest a couple of ways around this ambiguity in general: Use an agent with a passive: Puto me ab ea ...


8

'There is'/'there are' in indirect speech is just esse, as in this passage from Pliny the Younger's letters (1.11.1): at hoc ipsum scribe, nihil esse quod scribas, vel solum illud unde incipere priores solebant: 'si vales, bene est; ego valeo.' Yet write this very thing, that there is nothing.... In indirect speech, there's always some risk of a loss of ...


7

I have already looked it up, and the below is what Allen and Greenough have to say (which matches what I seemed to remember). In short, use the future participle with fuisse: Credo Hannibalem victurum fuisse. Allen and Greenough: [*] b. In changing a Condition contrary to fact (§ 517) into the Indirect Discourse, the following points require notice:— ...


7

The only thing you're missing is ūnā, which here is an adverb meaning "together". See L&S, part C of the entry. As for the second sentence, yes, in a multi-sentence passage of indirect discourse it's normal for the accusative and infinitive construction to continue throughout, without a repeated verb of speaking.


6

Ad 1: when the main verb expresses sensory perception, such as hearing or seeing, the construction used is normally a participle: Te tibiis canentem audivi. (canentem agrees with the object te of the finite verb) Ad 2 and 3: these both have optional that in English, which is a sign that they are to be rendered as an accusativus cum infinitivo, the ...


6

Joonas's passive version, puto me ab ea amari, is the most obvious (I don't mean that disparagingly) and straightforward way to avoid the potentially ambiguous double accusative in indirect statement; still, here are some of the numerous other ways of unambiguously expressing the same basic idea: puto eam amore mei incensam/affectam/captam (esse). 'I think ...


5

Well, actually™ it's not true that perception verbs are normally used with the Present Participle. This is the natural home of the Accusative with Infinitive (AcI), while Present Participle (AcPP) is less frequent in this use, although its use expands in Late Latin to cover even indirect quotations, previously the exclusive domain in the AcI. Pinkster's 2021 ...


5

The accusative subject of the sentence you highlight is actually tot miracula. Let's go through it step by step: Vix scit... He hardly knows that... [setting us for an accusative + infinitive] tot miracula futura esse ...as many wonderful things are about to happen... hoc anno...quam anno proximo. ...this year as last year. [ablative of time when]...


5

Other possibilities: Ea me amare videtur. Ea mihi me amare videtur. Puto eam amorem in me habere.


4

The convention, mentioned by Cerberus (CHAT): "The first accusative is taken as the primary argument of the infinitive, if there is ambiguity (i.e. no context)." is also given in my elementary text (Oulton) when translating an accusative and infinitive. "iudex sciebat servum militem interfecisse." = (a) "The judge knew that the ...


4

In this sentence, hoc anno is not the subject of esse. The subject of this infinitive is tot miracula (Acc. pl.). I'm afraid what you're missing is the following fact: you should not expect translations respect the syntax/grammar of the original text. Generally speaking, good translations must respect the meaning/contents/information but not necessarily the ...


4

The main question is: What is indirect speech? If any use of accusativus cum infinitivo counts as indirect speech, then you can argue that memento mori is indeed indirect speech. After all, the literal reading "remember to die" makes no sense as the triumphant general is not supposed to die in the ceremony. Supplementing a pronoun sounds natural and makes ...


4

I need a bit more context to come up with an explanation: Cum in crypta, per quam transeundum erat, pueri nobiles ex Asia ad edendas in scaena operas evocati praepararentur, ut eos inspiceret hortareturque restitit, ac nisi princeps gregis algere se diceret, redire ac repraesentare spectaculum (2) voluit. Duplex dehinc fama est: alii tradunt [here begins ...


4

Strictly speaking, Iovem should be indirect speech, as you say, without quotation marks, because of the accusative. Then it would be translated as follows: ...and that, when Gaius gave Jupiter (as the password), Chaerea exclaimed... We moderns may be inclined to put Jupiter in quotation marks, lest the passage be read as if Caligula were handing over the ...


4

You are correct that the a.c.i. (and some other constructions) is called indirect speech. So Lucretius could have written, in a new sentence, nequaquam divinitus est creata natura, which would not have been indirect speech. But I think the main point here is that indirect speech is not necessarily speech from someone other than the speaker: it can be the ...


3

I am not sure whether you mean that these words are uttered by Pilate or a narrator. Let us build the sentences in both cases. Whichever you intended, I hope the differences are illuminating. I will not touch your vocabulary apart from one word: efferre is "to carry out" in a concrete way, not in the idiomatic English sense of completing a task. I ...


2

There's no reason to treat imperatives differently. I'm sure you can find other examples, but the one given in A&G comes straight from Cicero: fac...mihi esse persuasum (N. D. i. 75) You also see it frequently with dic, and in comedy things like dic te ducturum. You can see parallel examples in Cicero 2.76 and Quintilian 9.75, etc. I even give an ...


2

When a clause is subordinate to a nominal form of a verb (anything that does not have a grammatical person), the conjunctive predicate of the subordinate clause follows the predicate verb of its main clause, not the nominal form. For example: Me adiit mirans, cur Graeci sic loquerent. (Here loqui follows adire, not mirari.) There is, however, an exception: ...


1

Both are fine. I think this is analogous to the question whether a verb should be listed as trahere or traho. Both conventions are in use and both make sense; see e.g. this question for a further discussion. The choice of the basic form of something for listing purposes is arbitrary, as it is a description in isolation of something that can only really be ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible