# She say that she loves me



## Infignus

Hello! Considering that in the Latin language there are verbs with double accusative (for example, "dicere", to say, to tell) and that one of the direct complements of the sentence can be a "thing", can this "thing" be a substantive subordinate clause? For example, is this sentence correct ?:

"me dicit eam amare me"
(she tells me that she loves me)

Sorry for my English, I am using google translator.


----------



## Scholiast

salue, Infigne, et ad Forum nostrum mehercle bene uenisti.


Infignus said:


> For example, is this sentence correct ?:
> 
> "me dicit eam amare me"
> (she tells me that she loves me)
> 
> Sorry for my English, I am using google translator.



1. Don't ever use Google Translate for Latin. It cannot cope with inflected languages, and has grave difficulty coping with English at all, because of the huge numbers of homographs (just try entering 'dock' or 'stock' for example).
2. Yes, in some circumstances Latin can have double accusatives, but not here.*
3. English 'she tells me' requires a Latin dative for 'me', i.e. 'she says _to_ me...' which in Latin is the dative _mihi._
4. In indirect speech like this, yes Latin regularly uses accusative + infinitive verb. But if the subject of the indirect statement is the same as that of the principal clause (i.e. '...she loves me' corresponds with the indirect statement 'I love you') the indirect form needs the _reflexive_ pronoun-subject _se_. _mihi dicit eam me amare_ is grammatical but means 'She [Mary] says that she [Julia] loves me'.

Σ

*Edit: see A&G § 395.


----------



## Snodv

The double accusatives I know about are along the lines of "he called me stupid,' _me stultum vocavit_, or "they elected him senator," _illum senatorem elegerunt_.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes amici!


Snodv said:


> The double accusatives I know about are along the lines of "he called me stupid,' _me stultum vocavit_,


...which I would call predicative.
No! I meant expressions such as 'Caesar Germanos flumen traiicit' (_BC_ 1.83).
Σ


----------



## Snodv

Gotcha.  Me Latinum doces.


----------



## Infignus

Thank you for your answers!


----------



## bearded

Scholiast said:


> _mihi dicit eam me amare_ is grammatical but means 'She [Mary] says that she [Julia] loves me'.


Would then_ Mihi dicit se me amare_ be fully correct and unambiguous as a translation of ''she tells me that she loves me''? I think it would, but somehow the sentence sounds a bit odd in Latin. Would a different word order be better, maybe?_ Mihi dicit se amare me/mihi se dicit amare me..._ Thank you, Scholiast.


----------



## bearded

Infignus said:


> I do not know what infinitive to use in the substantive subordinate clause next to the verb "dixit".


You should use present infinitive if the two actions (to say and to love) are simultaneous (dixit_ amare_ ), and past infinitive if one action precedes the other ('she said she_ had loved_ ' = dixit_ amavisse_ ).


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more


bearded said:


> Would a different word order be better, maybe?_ Mihi dicit se amare me/mihi se dicit amare me..._


When we are beginning Latin, we are sometimes told that 'word-order does not matter'. This is, however, only partially true, as word-order can affect emphasis or tone of voice (just as it can in English—'Problems like this a computer could solve in seconds' has a different flavour from 'A computer could solve problems like this in seconds'). And that applies to sense too, where Latin indirect statement is concerned: since within the indirect clause subject and object are alike both accusative, the usual 'neutral' word order is almost always followed, i.e. SOV (here '...se me amare')—obviously to avoid ambiguity; in sentences where no ambiguity could arise, there is more flexibility ('dicit castra milites ponere' could never be construed as 'he says the camp is pitching the troops'). And it would be most unusual, if not completely wrong, to separate the subject from the rest of the acc. + infin. clause, though we may sometimes find the main introductory verb postponed as in 'se me amare dicit', though this is quite rare and occurs usually only with indirect statements which like this are tolerably short.
Σ
PS in my earliest post here (# 2), under point 4, "'...she loves me' corresponds with the indirect statement 'I love you'" should have read "'...she loves me' corresponds with the direct statement 'I love you'", but I did not notice this until my licence to Edit had expired.


----------



## bearded

Thank you, Scholiast.


----------



## Infignus

I have another doubt ... How would the following sentence be translated, then? : "She said that she loves me". what infinitive should I use? I can not find a way to translate it... Greetings!


----------



## Scholiast

Avete infinge, bearded et al.!

Good question (# 11), answers not covered in the previous discussion.

My instinct here remains: (_mihi_)_ dixit se me amare_. But maybe we need to add an adverb, _dixit se me *etiamnunc* amare_, or _*iam*_, meaning 'now' or 'still'. Either version should clear up ambiguity (which Latin hates), but _etiamnunc_ might convey too much of a sense of 'even in spite of what you have done/said...'.

So for the most neutral formulation, I'd go for _dixit se me nunc amare.

nunc _qualifies enough the infinitive.

Σ


----------



## bearded

bearded said:


> Would then_ Mihi dicit se me amare_ be fully correct and unambiguous


I'd like to specify better the reason for the doubt I expressed in #7: if we compare two sentences, namely ''she says that she loves me'' and ''she says that I love her'', would the simple difference in the word order_ dicit* se me* amare_ vs._ dicit* me se* amare_ be sufficient to express the different meaning, or would an ambiguity remain..?
 Many thanks, Scholiast: unfortunately I forgot such things, which I used to know many years ago.


----------



## Pietruzzo

bearded said:


> would the simple difference in the word order_ dicit* se me* amare_ vs._ dicit* me se* amare_ be sufficient to express the different meaning, o


"_Nulla potest mulier tantum se dicere amatam vere, quantum a me Lesbia amata mea est._"


----------



## bearded

Pietruzzo, do you mean to suggest that in one of those sentences a passive construction would be necessary in order to differentiate..?  Catullus used poetic structures after all.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes, praesertim bearded Pietruzzoque!


bearded said:


> if we compare two sentences, namely ''she says that she loves me'' and ''she says that I love her'', would the simple difference in the word order_ dicit* se me* amare_ vs._ dicit* me se* amare_ be sufficient to express the different meaning


Precisely. But (what I think Pietruzzo (in # 14) was trying to point out), the 'rules' of word-order in verse are more complex, for reasons of metrical convenience. In my earlier remarks in the thread I ought to have made that clear, sorry.
Σ


----------



## Pietruzzo

bearded said:


> Pietruzzo, do you mean to suggest that in one of those sentences a passive construction would be necessary in order to differentiate..?  Catullus used poetic structures after all.


Not necessary but more elegant (in my ignorant opinion)


----------



## Scholiast

saluete iterum!



Pietruzzo said:


> Not necessary but more elegant



Quite so. The point here is that because of the grammatical gender of the participle (and _a me_ in line 2 of the couplet) there is no room for the ambiguity that could arise in a sentence such as _dixit me amare se_ or the (barbarous) like. Catullus knew his Latin, and its limitations, better than any of us can.

Σ


----------



## Coffeemachtspass

Infignus said:


> I have another doubt ... How would the following sentence be translated, then? : "She said that she loves me". what infinitive should I use? I can not find a way to translate it... Greetings!



For clarity, the Spanish is,

*Ella dijo/decía amarme. 
*
There is no dependent clause because there is no change in grammatical subject.


----------



## GattoSulTavolo

bearded said:


> I'd like to specify better the reason for the doubt I expressed in #7: if we compare two sentences, namely ''she says that she loves me'' and ''she says that I love her'', would the simple difference in the word order_ dicit* se me* amare_ vs._ dicit* me se* amare_ be sufficient to express the different meaning, or would an ambiguity remain..?
> Many thanks, Scholiast: unfortunately I forgot such things, which I used to know many years ago.



I think

_dicit* se me* amare = dicit* me se* amare = she says she loves me
dicit eam me amare = dicit me eam amare = she says I love her. _In this sentence, just as in English, you can't understand if the one speaking is the same person as the one loved.

Am I wrong? My Latin is a bit rusty...


----------



## bearded

Scholiast (#16) seems to agree that the meaning changes simply depending on the word order (''precisely''). He is one of the best latinists in the forum.


----------



## Pietruzzo

GattoSulTavolo said:


> _dicit eam me amare = dicit me eam amare = she says I love her. _


In this case "eam" would refer to another person, not to the subject of "dicit".
She says I love her (another woman)
She says she (another woman) loves me.


----------



## Scholiast

@Petruzzo (# 22):

As I wrote in # 2:


Scholiast said:


> 4. ... But if the subject of the indirect statement is the same as that of the principal clause (i.e. '...she loves me' corresponds with the indirect statement 'I love you') the indirect form needs the _reflexive_ pronoun-subject _se_. _mihi dicit eam me amare_ is grammatical but means 'She [Mary] says that she [Julia] loves me'.


Σ


----------



## GattoSulTavolo

Thank you for your replies.

So,

dicit se me amare = she [Mary] says she [Mary] loves me
dicit me se amare = she [Mary] says she [Mary] loves me (no ambiguity, since "se" must be the subject of the indirect statement)
dicit me eam amare = she[Mary] says I love her[Mary, or Julia maybe]
dicit eam me amare = she[Mary] says she [Julia] loves me

I hope I correctly understood your remarks!


----------



## bearded

GattoSulTavolo said:


> I hope I correctly understood


I don't think you did.
  I understand no.2 (dicit me se amare) as ''she (Mary) says that I love her (Mary)''.
And no.3 (dicit me eam amare) as ''she(Mary) says that I love her (Julia, only)''.
Accusative ''se'' refers to the same subject who 'says', whereas ''eam'' refers to a third person.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete iterum!

From my previous posts here, it should be clear that I endorse the substance of bearded's latest reply (# 25). So in indirect speech, the accusative pronoun _se_ must, yes, always refer back to the speaker (/thinker) of the principal verb, whether as subject or as object. My only further observation is that this discussion is all in the domain of (inevitably somewhat artificial) grammar-school text-book syntactical logic, and that in any practical and 'real' Latin literary context, the accessory circumstantial detail known to both writer and reader would assist in unravelling the complications.

Σ


----------



## GattoSulTavolo

Putaui me omnia intelligere, tamen nihil intellexi 
Nunc puto me aliquid intelligere et igitur me gratias uobis agere uolo.


----------



## Scholiast

avete omnes!
@GattoSulTavolo
spero te (# 27) _intell__E__gere_ scribere voluisse!
Σ


----------



## GattoSulTavolo

Thank you again, so many lessons in a single thread!


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more


Scholiast said:


> spero te (# 27) _intell__E__gere_ scribere voluisse!


A friendly correspondent points out to me that, though rarer, _intellIgere _is found alongside _intellEgere_, and the _OLD_ confirms that this is so. So my apologies for the haughty-sounding tone in # 28. For the rest of the day I shall dine on Humble Pie.

Σ


----------



## GattoSulTavolo

Actually, Scholiast, in #27 I wanted to use only one verb, but thanks to you I realized I used two verbs instead, "intellego" and "intelligo".
So thank you again!


----------

