# the master told me what was to be done



## Lamb67

the master told me what was to be done

dominus iussit me quid fieret 
dominus imperavit mihi quid esset factus


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> the master told me what was to be done
> 
> dominus iussit me quid fieret
> dominus imperavit mihi quid esset factus


 
First, allow me to change your verb to _dico_.

In that case, I think more than one translation is possible because the English phrase "was to be done" may be interpreted in two different ways.

"what was to be done" = "what would be done" (future relative to past)
_Dominus dixit mihi quid fieret._

"what was to be done" = "what should be done" (obligation)
_Dominus dixit mihi quid faciendum esset._

If you wish to keep a verb of ordering or commanding, it might be more natural to say:

"My master told me *to do _____*."
Dominus iussit me ______ facere/agere/gerere.
Dominus imperavit mihi ut ______ facerem/agerem/gererem.

Of course, the choice of the "to do" verb will depend upon context and Latin idiom.

Maybe the others have some different ideas.


----------



## Lamb67

Dominus iussit me quid esse faciendum
Dominus imperavit mihi quid faciendum esset
Are they both right here ?


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> Dominus iussit me quid esset faciendum
> Dominus imperavit mihi quid faciendum esset
> Are they both right here ?


 
I honestly have no clue whether these are possible.

Others here may be able to comment on their acceptability.

Edit: I realized that I gave you the wrong construction for _impero_ earlier; unlike _iubeo_, it does not take an object infinitive with subject accusative. I have corrected the mistake above. Just for your information, most verbs of commanding take an _ut+subjunctive_ construction.



Lamb67 said:


> ...quid esset factus


I also thought I'd let you know that this phrase from your first post means:

"...what had been done" with a primary verb in a secondary tense.


----------



## Fred_C

Starfrown said:


> I honestly have no clue whether these are possible.


They are not, I think.
"quid esset..." is an interrogative clause. (because of the subjunctive mood)
You cannot ask a question with "jubere" or "imperare", you can only give orders or instructions.


----------



## Starfrown

Fred_C said:


> They are not, I think.
> "quid esset..." is an interrogative clause. (because of the subjunctive mood)
> You cannot ask a question with "jubere" or "imperare", you can only give orders or instructions.


Thanks, Fred.

I was leaning against them myself because they seemed to be odd combinations of indirect commands and indirect questions.  Whether acceptable or not, using a verb such as _dico_ instead, as I suggested above, definitely solves the problem.


----------



## Starfrown

In post 4 above, I made the following note:



Starfrown said:


> I also thought I'd let you know that this phrase from your first post means:
> 
> "...what had been done" with a primary verb in a secondary tense.


 
That is true of quid esset factum, not quid esset factus. (_factus,a,um_ should be in its neuter form here.)

Sorry. That one slipped by me.


----------

