LANGUAGE NOTE: INDIRECT STATEMENTS WITH PAST TENSE MAIN VERBS (with Stage 40)
1. a) amici Salvio affirmant nullum periculum instare.
Friends tell Salvius that no danger is threatening.
b) amici Salvio affirmaverunt nullum periculum instare.
Friends told Salvius that no danger was threatening.
2. a) Domitianus scit se ipsum sceleribus Salvii implicari.
Domitian knows that he himself is involved in Salvius' crimes.
b) Domitianus sciebat se ipsum in sceleribus Salvii implicari.
Domitian knew that he himself was involved in Salvius' crimes.
3. a) Myropnous narrat Salvium Domitiam et Paridem domum Haterii invitavisse.
Myropnous tells that Salvius invited Domitia and Paris to Haterius' house.
b) Myropnous narravit Salvium Domitiam et Paridem domum Haterii invitavisse.
Myropnous told that Salvius had invited Domitia and Paris to Haterius' house.
4. a) pumilio addit Paridem occisum esse.
The dwarf adds that Paris was killed.
b) pumilio addidit Paridem occisum esse.
The dwarf added that Paris had been killed.
5. a) Salvius sperat se a manibus accusatorum elapsurum esse.
Salvius hopes that he will escape the hands of his accusers.
b) Salvius sperabat se a manibus accusatorum elapsurum esse.
Salvius hoped that he would escape the hands of his accusers.
All the sentences above contain further examples of the indirect statement construction. In Latin, this construction,
introduced by an S.T.K.P. verb, contains a verb in the infinitive mood, with its subject in the accusative case. In
English, the accusative and infinitive phrase is translated by a that clause.
In the a) sentences above, the main S.T.K.P. verb, introducing the indirect statement, is present tense.
In the b) sentences above, the main S.T.K.P. verb, introducing the indirect statement, is past tense.
The tense of the main verb does not affect the rest of the Latin sentence (the "indirect statement" part) but it does
affect the English translations for the indirect statement "that" clause. (Notice the changes, in bold print, between the
a) and b) sentences.) These changes are necessary because, with a "that" clause, English is forced into using a
system called "tense sequence", where tenses of subordinate clauses are affected by the tense of the main verb they
follow. ("sequence": from sequi-to follow ) (Latin also follows tense sequence when required; for example, in an
indirect command after a present tense verb, Latin uses a present subjunctive, but after a past tense verb it uses an
imperfect subjunctive.)
Sentences 1 and 2 above both contain present tense infinitives; so the English translation must show this action
happening at the same time as the main verb.
Sentences 3 and 4 above both contain perfect tense infinitives; so the English translation must show this action
happening before the main verb.
Sentence 5 above contains a future tense infinitive; so the English translation must show this action happening after
the main verb.