# Deponent verbs in indirect discourse



## Alacritas

Salvete,

Would any of you know how to decline deponent verbs in indirect discourse?

For example, in response to the question (talking about the Aeneid), "Quid accidit in ora Cyclopum?", I wrote:

"Cum in ora Sicilia Cyclopum appullissent, Troiani e silvis hominem sordidum perterritumque venisse viderunt. Graecus erat et etiam in Troia contra Ilium pugnabat; nihilominus Troianis appropinquavit clamans: '_Si pereo, hominum manibus periisse iuvabit!' _Cum Anchises eo dextram dedisse eumque interrogavisset 'quis esset' et 'unde veniret', dixit 'se cum Ulixe aliisque comitibus Ithaciensis in antro Cyclopis Polyphemi desertos esse. Istum Cyclopem infandum carne sanguineque hominum *vescum esse*.' His dictis, hortatus est ut istam terram exsecrabilem fugerent. [...]"

The bolded bit is my attempt at rendering "vescor" in the appropriate form for indirect speech. I'm not quite sure here though -- should I put it in the accusative like I did? 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Vobis gratias ago,

Alacritas



P.S. If you noticed any other errors in my Latin composition, I am by all means open to criticism! I am here to learn. Thank you.


----------



## CapnPrep

Alacritas said:


> The bolded bit is my attempt at rendering "vescor" in the appropriate form for indirect speech. I'm not quite sure here though -- should I put it in the accusative like I did?


_Dixit Cyclopem carne *vescum esse*_ means "He said that the Cyclops *had fed* _or_ *had been feeding *upon flesh". Is that what you wanted to say?


----------



## Alacritas

Oh, does it? Then how would I say "He said that the Cyclops fed on flesh"?  In other words, if it were a direct quote -- _Dixit, "Cyclops carne vescitur!"_

I was under the impression that in indirect speech you used the infinitive that corresponded to whatever the main verb was -- in this case the perfect infinitive because the main verb introducing the indirect discourse clause ("Dixit") is in the perfect.


----------



## Cagey

No, the tense of the infinitive establishes the relationship to the finite verb.  If the action is at the same time as the finite verb, use the present infinitive.  That is, if the original was: _He said, "The Cyclops eats meat," _you want to use the present infinitive.  

If you use the perfect infinitive, you are setting the action before his speech, as CapnPrep explains.


----------



## Alacritas

Cagey said:


> The tense of the infinitive establishes the relationship to the finite verb.



Tibi gratias ago! Nunc intellego id quod volebam scire. 

Debet igitur sic esse, nonne?:

[...] dixit, '[...] Istum Cyclopem infandum carne sanguineque hominum vesci'

Et si vellem dicere, 'Graecus dixit, "Ab Ithacá venio"', sic esset: "Graceus dixit, 'se ab Ithacá venire'" neque "dixit, 'se ab ithaca venisse' quia secunda sententia significaret "he said he had come from Ithaca" neque "he said he came from Ithaca (i.e. he said, "I come from Ithaca". Nonne?


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

CapnPrep said:


> _Dixit Cyclopem carne *vescum esse*_ means "He said that the Cyclops *had fed* _or_ *had been feeding *upon flesh". Is that what you wanted to say?



I quite agree with you about the meaning of the tense. I just wanted to add that according to my dictionary this past form of_ vescor _isn't attested and should have been anyhow replaced.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Alacritas said:


> Tibi gratias ago! Nunc intellego id quod volebam scire.
> 
> Debet igitur sic esse, nonne?:
> 
> [...] dixit, '[...] Istum Cyclopem infandum carne sanguineque hominum vesci'
> 
> Et si vellem dicere, 'Graecus dixit, "Ab Ithacá venio"', sic esset: "Graceus dixit, 'se ab Ithacá venire'" neque "dixit, 'se ab ithaca venisse' quia secunda sententia significaret "he said he had come from Ithaca" neque "he said he came from Ithaca (i.e. he said, "I come from Ithaca". Nonne?



Optime ! Coming back to the whole of your sentence and for the same reason, I suggest to write _Troiani e silvis hominem sordidum perterritumque venire viderunt  _( or better : venientem )


----------



## Scholiast

salve!



> Et si vellem dicere, 'Graecus dixit, "Ab Ithacá venio"', sic esset:  "Graceus dixit, 'se ab Ithacá venire'" neque "dixit, 'se ab ithaca  venisse' quia secunda sententia significaret "he said he had come from  Ithaca" neque "he said he came from Ithaca (i.e. he said, "I come from  Ithaca". Nonne?



principium grammaticum illud, quod  Capnprep et Cagey meminerant, scilicet de temporibus infinitivis  verborum in oratione obliqua, te satis intellexisse existimor.

quod tamen istam quaestionem supplementariam pertinet, recte dici potest tam
_
Graecus dixit se ab insula Ithaca venire_

quam aut 
_
Graecus dixit se ab insula Ithaca venisse_

exstitit  nihilominus problema. quod idiomatice Anglice dici solet "I come from  Ithaca", id contextui isti vix proprium esset. nam his (Anglicis) verbis  de _patria_ rogatur nativa, non de loco _unde initium itineris factum esset_. _domus_ Ulixei re vera Ithaca erat; sed _iter_ eius a Troia.


----------



## Alacritas

Scholiast said:


> salve!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quod tamen istam quaestionem supplementariam pertinet, recte dici potest tam
> _
> Graecus dixit se ab insula Ithaca venire_
> 
> quam aut
> _
> Graecus dixit se ab insula Ithaca venisse_
> 
> exstitit  nihilominus problema. quod idiomatice Anglice dici solet "I come from  Ithaca", id contextui isti vix proprium esset. nam his (Anglicis) verbis  de _patria_ rogatur nativa, non de loco _unde initium itineris factum esset_. _domus_ Ulixei re vera Ithaca erat; sed _iter_ eius a Troia.



Puto vero patrium illius Graeci Ithacam esse -- scripsi igitur "Graecus dixit se ab insula Ithaca venire" neque "[...] venisse". Ut supra dixisti, Anglice "I come from..." non significat unde modo venit, sed indicat patriam locutoris. Quoque Latine sic est? Aut Latine alio modo hoc dicitur?

Gratias.


----------



## Scholiast

salve iterum, Alacritas!



> Ut supra dixisti, Anglice "I come from..." non significat unde modo  venit, sed indicat patriam locutoris. Quoque Latine sic est? Aut Latine  alio modo hoc dicitur?



spero me recte quaestionem tuam recte intellexisse. mihi videt sententia (oratione recta expressa) "[egomet] ab insula Ithaca venio" aliis verbis dicere velle "iter facio/feci: *Ithaca profectus sum*".

melius esset igitur: "patria mea [vel 'mihi'] Ithaca est". quod sane oratione obliqua his fere verbis exprimi licet "Graecus dixit patriam suam Ithacam esse".

[Adnotatio: particulo isto _quoque_ postpositivo utendum est: "estne *hoc quoque*....?" &c.]


----------



## Alacritas

Scholiast said:
			
		

> melius esset igitur: "patria mea [vel 'mihi'] Ithaca est".



Hoc mihi valde melius videtur -- gratias tibi ago ob auxilium!



			
				Scholiast said:
			
		

> [Adnotatio: particulo isto _quoque_ postpositivo utendum est: "estne *hoc quoque*....?" &c.]



Numquam hoc sciebam! Iterum tibi gratias ago!



Velim hanc sermonem pergere, sed nolo moderatores perturbare causa errationis a re (i.e. "wandering off topic").



Omnibus qui me iuverunt orationem obliquam intellegere gratias iterum ago! 

Valete.


Alacritas


----------

