# There were some who had no doubt that the tower was about to fall



## Lamb67

There were some who had no doubt that the tower was about to fall.

_Erant qui non haberent dubium quin turris casura esset._

_What's your suggestions please ?_


----------



## Starfrown

As far as I can tell, your sentence is correct.


----------



## XiaoRoel

> Erant (aliqui) qui non dubitabant quin turris iam concidenda sit


Para _turris_ me parece mejor y más clásico *concido*. *Iam* indica la circunstancia de inmediatez, y la _perifrástica_ con la forma en -*nd*- la idea de que que algo habrá de suceder.
Espero los comentarios.


----------



## Cagey

In English, _going to [fall]_ simply talks about the future. It does not imply necessity, as the Latin periphrastic does.   I propose:
Erant (aliqui) qui non dubitabant quin turris iam _concideret_.​Would that be acceptable?


----------



## XiaoRoel

¡Qué difícil para los hablantes de inglés llegar a la riqueza verbal del latín! Os compadezco. Tenéis que hacer verdaderos equilibrios.
Ahora en serio. No veo problema en _concideret_, aunque usaría mejor _concidat_.


----------



## Cagey

Perhaps_ concideret _is too much like a schoolbook translation.

Do you use _concidat_ because you think the tower is now still about to fall?


----------



## XiaoRoel

Exacto, recojo esa idea de futuro I que me dijiste tenía la frase inglesa. Y el futuro I en subjuntivo lo expreso por el presente. Además el _presente de subjuntivo_ es lo que siempre vi con _quin_ en los ejemplos clásicos. Pero no conozco todos los textos por desgracia para mí, y puedo equivocarme.


----------



## Starfrown

I think my earlier post was a bit hasty. For one thing, _cado_ is perhaps not a terribly good choice here. (Unlike you two however, I now favor _ruo_.) Secondly, I cannot entirely justify the subjunctive in the _qui_ clause; the indicative is probably a safer bet here.


Cagey said:


> In English, going to [fall] simply talks about the future. It does not imply necessity, as the Latin periphrastic does. I propose:
> Erant (aliqui) qui non dubitabant quin turris iam concideret.
> Would that be acceptable?


By periphrastic, I take it you mean the _passive_ periphrastic, and _not_ the future periphrastic.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing amiss grammatically with your sentence, but the future periphrastic in _quin_ clauses after _habere dubium_/_dubitare_/etc. was actually very commonly used instead of the usual subjunctive tenses. This source (check point 3) is particularly helpful, I think.


Cagey said:


> Do you use concidat because you think the tower is now still about to fall?





XiaoRoel said:


> Exacto, recojo esa idea de futuro I que me dijiste tenía la frase inglesa. Y el futuro I en subjuntivo lo expreso por el presente. Además el presente de subjuntivo es lo que siempre vi con quin en los ejemplos clásicos. Pero no conozco todos los textos por desgracia para mí, y puedo equivocarme.


Lamb's original English sentence says nothing about whether or not the tower did end up falling down. I could only justify _concidat_ if it were still standing in the present; even then, I am not entirely sure and would have to do more research. As for classical examples with a verb form other than the present subjunctive, my link above gives the following from Cicero:

_Quum nec mihi nec fratri dubium esset Brundusium contenderemus..._

I also found the following example from Valerius Maximus with the periphrastic construction:

_Non erat dubium quin ea res militum nostrorum animos debilitatura esset..._
----
I suppose my revised suggestion is this:

_Erant (aliqui) qui non dubitabant/habebant dubium quin turris [iam] rutura esset._

(_Iam_ would affect the meaning of the sentence somewhat, would it not?)

I may have to revise it further, but for now, this is the best I've got.


----------

