# dixit eam bonam uxorem esse



## leisulin

I gather that that means "He said that she was a good wife."  Right?
Would someone please tell me if there is a way, with oratio obliqua, to say, instead:  "He said that she IS a good wife"?
I.e., she was a good wife at the time he said it, and she continues to be a good wife here in the present.  My Latin grammar references say that in indirect discourse, the use of the present infinitive with the past tense main verb means the "action" is happening at the same time as the main verb, which seems to only allow saying that she WAS a good wife at the time he spoke, but we don't know if she still is now.  Would someone please enlighten me on this?


----------



## Cagey

Our present would be the future in the past, At the time he spoke -- in the past -- our present would be in the future.  For that reason, the person whose speech is being reported he can't use a present tense to the express that she was a good wife when this was said and that she would continue to be up to our present. 

If the person who reported what was said wanted to include the idea 'and she continues to be a good wife' they would have to express the idea differently, probably adding a comment in their own voice.


----------



## wandle

leisulin said:


> My Latin grammar references say that in indirect discourse, the use of the present infinitive with the past tense main verb means the "action" is happening at the same time as the main verb


That is right. The time meaning of the infinitive in this construction is relative to the main verb.

The present infinitive expresses an action or state contemporaneous with the main verb; the perfect infinitive, an action or state which is past in relation to the main verb; and the future infinitive, an action or state which is future in relation to the main verb (even though it may be past in relation to the reader).


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete omnes!

This may turn into a long-ish thread.

Cagey and wandle are both in this much right, that these are the usual principles, beloved of schoolmasters and mystifying to many pupils and students.

But I have a suspicion that the matter is a little more complex than either these distinguished gentlemen, or indeed A&G, allow - for two main semantic reasons.

First, the Latin perf. (here _dixit_) in the main verb may equate to either the English past preterite ("he said...") or to the English present perfect ("he has said..."). This makes the sequencing of tenses in dependent verbs not quite so clear-cut as is sometimes assumed - it leads, for example, to the fact that even in the strictest syntax, a perf. main verb may be followed by either present or imperf. subjunctives in clauses introduced by _ut_ or _ne_, depending on whether the main verb is aspectually present or historic.

Secondly, in the quoted context, _esse_ is an existential concept, rather than an event, which is by nature an enduring state of affairs, albeit sometimes finite. But it applies to other examples too. If an historic main verb leads to a present infinitive in the subordinate acc. + infin. clause, the latter will normally need to be rendered by an English continuous form (_dixit servum laborare_ = "He said that the slave _*was working*__"_). But this is also not an event, rather a state of affairs. In neither of these circumstances must one assume that the action/state being reported is finished.

_dixit eam bonam uxorem esse_ therefore can mean, and according to context be sensibly translated as, "He (has) said that she _*is*_ a good wife".

Σ


----------



## wandle

In principle, I agree entirely with Scholiast's two points. We may differ on the suggested translation.


> _dixit eam bonam uxorem esse_ therefore can mean, and according to context be sensibly translated as, "He (has) said that she is a good wife".


Here, I would say we must choose between either (a) the preterite sense of *dixit*, or (b) the perfect sense:

(a) preterite meaning: 'He said that she was a good wife';
(b) perfect meaning: 'He has said that she is a good wife'.

This distinction between the two senses of *dixit* remains fully in accordance with the principles expressed in my earlier post.

Incidentally, both meanings (a) and (b) can be used to express the same state of affairs. In other words, the semantic meaning of both may be identical and the situation in which they are used may be the same. The only difference between the two sentences in English is that (a) creates a past context and (b) a present context. This change of context need correspond to nothing more dramatic in the situation than a change of focus in the speaker's mind from one event to another.


----------



## leisulin

I am pleased to hear that response in particular.

I wonder also if there was an acceptable way to clarify the meaning by applying various temporal adverbs to the subordinate acc. + infin. clause (if that is even possible).  I can imagine a few possibilities (such as "semper"), but at my current level, I don't know if such a solution was even permitted or what the actual usage might be.


----------



## wandle

It is perfectly possible to put *semper* in the acc. & inf. clause, but it would not change the tense used in the translation.
That is because it would apply to the infinitive, not to *dixit*.

We would still have two different ways to translate the sentence, and would have to choose one or other according to the context.


----------

