# He was informed by scouts that the enemy were crossing the river



## Lamb67

He was informed by scouts that the enemy were crossing the river.

Certior factus est ab exploratoribus hostes flumen transire.


My question is on : Indirect statement: Accusative and Infinitive 

Thanks


----------



## Starfrown

The accusative-infinitive construction was indeed used with the expression _certior facere_, and it seems to me that you have used the construction correctly here.


----------



## Lamb67

Certior fiebat ab exploratoribus hostes flumen transire
Might it be another possibility ?


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> Certior fiebat ab exploratoribus hostes flumen transire
> Might it be another possibility ?


This is possible, but of course is not the same as the original.  With the imperfect, the sentence means:

"He *was being informed*..."


----------



## Lamb67

Now I understand why the English translation  for Latin often turn the imperfect tense in Latin into the simple past tense in English : please refer the following reply by Starfrown.
So I have just learnt as much about English grammer as the Latin one.

Thanks very much.


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> There is strong evidence that the English translation on-line for Latin often turn imperfect in Latin into the perfect in English. I assume that reason for that is the imperfect tense in English is not as much used as the the perfect in English and in translating Latin, the perfect in English fits into the imperfect in Latin very well.
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> Further it : When translating Latin story especially the imperfect in it, I think the perfect in English is good enough.
> On the other hand, the imperfect tense is common one in Romance language, but It is not so common in English.


This is a fairly difficult subject for native English speakers to master when studying Latin because _the English language entirely lacks an imperfect tense_. Note that it may also sometimes be difficult for speakers of the Romance languages, which do have an imperfect tense, to translate their thoughts into natural English.

The problem is that the English simple past form may have either simple or habitual/repeated/progressive aspect. In English, there is also a separate past form with progressive aspect formed by a combination of "was/were" and the present participle. We also sometimes employ the "used to ___" or "kept ___ing" constructions to indicate habitual/repeated action. In Latin, the perfect is _always_ used for simple past action, while the imperfect is _always_ used for habitual/repeated/progressive action. The best way to understand the differences between the languages is to consider some examples in English:

"I swam across the river yesterday." _Past simple--> Latin perfect_

"I was swimming across the river yesterday when I was attacked by a wild animal." _Past progressive--> Latin imperfect_

"I kept swimming in the river every year until I finally tired of it." _Past habitual/repeated--> Latin imperfect_

"When I was young, I swam (or 'used to swim') in the river every summer." _Past habitual/repeated--> Latin imperfect_

"As I swam (or 'was swimming') across the river, I saw children playing on either bank." _Past progressive--> Latin imperfect_

As you can see, in some ways, the situation is more complicated in English than in Latin. In general though, when the past simple is used for habitual/repeated or progressive aspect, this will be indicated by other words and/or phrases within the sentence (e.g. "regularly," "every day," "while," "as," etc.). It is also interesting to note that sometimes more than one verb form is possible, as in my last two examples.

To some extent, translation out of Latin into English requires the sprachgefuhl--that is, the linguistic judgment--of a native speaker. We know instinctively, as an online translator cannot, which forms are appropriate in a given case. Of course, foreigners can master the English system too--it just requires a bit of work. I'm not going to go into how we evaluate the aptness of a particular past form here, as that discussion would be more suited to the English Only forum.

Let's turn back to the sentence under consideration:

"He was informed by scouts that the enemy were crossing the river."

Here, I would say that there is a 99.9% chance that this sentence would be interpreted as past simple. In the absence of adverbs or adverbial phrases such as "every day," we would need something else to signify habitual/repeated or progressive aspect, if those are desired. In this case, the best option would be to write instead:

"He was being informed..." _Progressive_
"He kept being informed..." _Repeated_

In my opinion, the situation is even trickier for stative verbs such as "to be." Consider:

"I was a good man [but am no longer]" --> _Bonus homo fui._
"I was a good man [when I arrived in Rome]" --> _Bonus homo eram._

I hope I have given you some insight into this rather difficult topic. As always, feel free to ask any further questions you might have.


----------



## Lamb67

In short, in English the present and imperfect tenses as in our case, 'He is informed' and ' He was being informed' need to be turned into ' Certior fit/fiebat' . The English present tense certainly contains habitual/progressive/repeat aspects too,as we have just discussed.-- exactly the same as the simple past tense in English. 
On the other hand, ' He was informed' and ' He has been informed' fit together into ' Certior est factus' .


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> very grateful for your' long (in)sight' ; He is informed.... = Certior fit is assuredly correct, but the alternative one : Certior est factus might be also ok here.
> 
> More insight please ?


You have touched upon a few more difficult topics.

In Latin, _certior factus est _may refer either to the past tense with simple aspect or the present tense with completed aspect--that is, "He was informed" or "He has been informed," respectively.

_Certior fit_ is present tense, and may have simple, progressive, or habitual/repeated aspect--"He is informed," "He is being informed," or "He is informed (daily)," respectively.

Thus, any sentence with _certior factus est_ will have a different meaning from one with _certior fit_.

I think the problem you are having is related to translation out of the English "is informed" into Latin. The difficulty lies in the fact that the Latin passive perfect is formed from a combination of _esse_ and the perfect passive participle. Thus, if you translate _necatus est _literally into English, you wind up with "is slain." Now here's something that many studying English may not be aware of: _the English combination "is slain" may mean the same as the Latin_ necatus est_, but then again may not._

Let's consider some examples:

_Rex necatus est._ = "The king is slain." = "The king has been slain."

Note that it is indeed possible to translate the Latin word for word and arrive at an acceptable translation. _The combination of the past participle with the verb "to be" is one method of forming the present perfect in English. However, this typically produces a sentence with a somewhat archaic flavor._ _In contemporary English, we over 9 times out of 10 use "has been" + past participle instead. The truly confusing thing is that "to be" + past participle may also be used in English to indicate the passive present._ Consider:
 
"Kings are slain every day" = _Reges cotidie necati sunt._

"Every day" makes it clear that we are dealing with the present tense with repeated aspect. In order to translate this sentence into English, we need a different Latin verb form:

"Kings are slain every day" = _Reges cotidie necantur._

In general, translating present forms from one language into the other is easier because they may have simple, progressive, or habitual/repeated aspect in both languages. Of course, English also has a present progressive formed by a combination of "am/are/is" + present participle. I think you should consider the following:

_Iam Romam venit._ = "He comes now to Rome" = "He is coming now to Rome"

In this case, an English present has a literary, archaic flavor. In the contemporary language the present progressive would more likely be used; I simply wish to warn you that the present form in English may have progressive aspect, just like its Latin counterpart.

Your strategy in translating a verb from English into Latin, or vice versa, should be to identify _what tense_ and, just as important, _what aspect_ the verb has. Once you know both, you can select the appropriate form for that combination in the other language. The longer you spend studying the two languages, the better you will become at doing this automatically.

This aspect chart should help you considerably.

EDIT:
I just realized that I forgot to comment on the emphatic English present "do"+ bare infinitive. Example: 

"I do come to Rome every day. (I just don't go into your part of town.)"

In Latin, the simple present would be used for this as well:

_Venio cotidie Romam._

The Romans did not require special emphatic forms since, in their language, word order could convey such emphasis.


----------

