# 'I know that I am leaving'



## Copperknickers

I was wondering how to express this idiomatically in Latin: I have come up with two suggestions:

'scio ut discedam' 

and

'quod discedo, scio'


The second sounds a little strange to me, but at the same time a subjunctive clause doesn't seem right for the top one. Can anyone help?


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings

"...that I am leaving" in English is, after "I know...", an indirect statement.

In classical Latin, this calls for the Accusative + Infinitive construction:

_scio *me discedere*

_The question, and its answer, is, however, slightly complicated by the fact that English idiomatically uses a present ("I *am* leaving") with reference to a future or intended action, while Latin tends to be more precise, and so

_scio me discessurum [esse]_
would probably be better_.
_
But there is another snag. "I know that I am leaving" sounds as if it is concessive (= something like "Admittedly, I am leaving, but..." or "Although I am leaving..."; "*I* may be leaving, but..."), and if there is an unspoken further clause here, this would affect both the wording and the syntax.

More context therefore, please.


----------



## Copperknickers

Thank you. There isn't really any more context, just somebody asked how to say that in Latin, just that phrase alone.

The real purpose was to see how languages dealt with the concept of 'that'. So another phrase like:

I think that I will leave.
I said that I would do it.
I like that you value me.

would be equally useful. Am I right in thinking that you would use 'ut' + subjunctive for the latter two?


----------



## Cagey

Latin does not generally use an equivalent of 'that' in indirect discourse. 'That' in English translations of Latin does not always represent the same Latin word or construction. Your first two examples would use an accusative infinitive construction, as Scholiast explains. 
_scio me discessurum [esse]_
literally translated would be something like "I know me to be going to leave."
Translated into sensible English it is "I know that I am going to leave."

Indirect questions and indirect commands may be constructed differently. 
Latin would use a completely different construction for "I like that you value me". 

*ut* is used to introduces a variety of different clauses. It would be translated as 'that' in only a few specific constructions involving particular verbs.  For instance, Latin translations of the following would use 'ut':  _I fear that he won't come_; _I demand that it be done_. 

A general discussion of the divisions Latin makes between types of indirect discourse and subordinate clauses, and how each is treated is beyond the scope of this forum.  The Wiki article on indirect speech includes a discussion of Latin constructions. It discusses in more detail the accusative infinitive construction Scholiast has explained. 

You are welcome to ask about a particular sentence. We will need sufficient context to understand what you intend to say.


----------



## Scholiast

> The real purpose was to see how languages dealt with the concept of 'that'.


 (Copperknickers #3).

In that case it is worth pointing out (as a footnote to Cagey's detailed explanation) that Vulgar and Late Latin resorts to using _quod_ as a conjunction introducing indirect statements - and this of course finds its way into Romance (Italian _che_, French _que_ &c.).


----------



## Copperknickers

Cagey said:


> Latin does not generally use an equivalent of 'that' in indirect discourse. 'That' in English translations of Latin does not always represent the same Latin word or construction. Your first two examples would use an accusative infinitive construction, as Scholiast explains.



I know this, I'm saying the point of the question was to find out how other languages deal with the _idea_ which is expressed by the English word 'that' in an indirect statement. Obviously most Romance and Germanic languages use an identical construction, 'das', 'che' and 'que', so the questioner was interested in non Indo-European languages primarily. I simply gave Classical Latin as an example because I knew it did not have this identical construction. I am not interested in idiom so much as grammar. It wouldn't be idiomatically correct to say 'I know myself to be going to go' in English, but that is the direct comparison with the Latin idiom. Obviously the word 'know' is a bad word to use in this comparison because it takes an accusative and infinitive in Latin, which calls for a completely different construction. Since I don't speak Latin I don't know what a suitable verb would be to express this comparison better. I was just giving 'like' and 'said' as examples of verbs which, afaik, do not take an infinitive accusative construction, but can still be used in a similar way. I'm sure you understand, I would like to simply ask for a direct translation, but I don't know a suitable verb to use. I don't want a detailed grammatical explanation as much as the translation, I can work out the grammar for myself. 

In short, if I am correct in saying that 'I like that...' does not require an accusative infinitive constrution, and that this is the most common sort of indirect statement, then I would ask that you translate that, thank you.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once again.

I regret to say that I find Copperknickers' further explanation (#6) still somewhat opaque. This is perhaps partly because English has three quite distinct functions for the word "that" - as a demonstrative ("that house", "that man"), as a relative "The book that I was reading", and as a conjunction (see above), and these are clearly segregated in Latin grammar and syntax.

If I have understood correctly, though, it is the demonstratives that Copperkn. is asking about.

Even here, however, there is no single or simple answer. Latin possesses three demonstrative pronouns/pronominal adjectives which in different contexts correspond with "that" (in phrases such as "that book", "that man" &c.):  _is_, _ille_ and _iste_. One may say equally _is homo pulcher est_, _ille homo pulcher est_ or _iste homo pulcher est_, and translate any or all of them with "That man is handsome".

 These are distinguished by nuance. _is_ is relatively neutral and unemphatic, and may sometimes be rendered simply by "the" (Latin otherwise lacking a definite article). _ille_ means "that one yonder" - at a distance, physically or emotionally, from both speaker and addressee; _iste_ means "that [one] _of yours_" or "that...beside/near/concerning you". Consequently, this last is used in for example legal speeches where a counsel is referring to his opponent's client, but directly addressing the opponent; it can sometimes be translated therefore as "your".

A further complication is that all three of these demonstratives are declined. So "I don't like that man" becomes (for instance) _illum hominem / istum hominem / eum hominem non amo_. "I like that" could be any or all of _eum / eam / id amo_, _illum / illam / illud amo_ or _istum_ / _istam / istud amo_, depending on the gender of the noun for which "that" stands as a pronoun. "I don't like that man's face" would be _eius / illius / istius [hominis] faciem non amo_.

There is a comprehensive range of these forms for all three demonstratives, in five grammatical cases, three genders and in both singular and plural forms (though some of these duplicate each other - datives singular and masc. nom. plurals, for example, or nom. fem. sing. and neut. plur., so there are only about fourteen or fifteen forms of each word).


----------

