# -ne with subjunctive; indirect question; whether



## Filius Regis

There is in Wheelock's Latin in chapter XXXVIII a small piece of text which I, after some time, simply did not pay much attention to anymore:

Cum quidam orator se misericordiam oratione fortasse movisse putaret, rogavit Catulum videreturne misericordiam movisse.​Of importance here is the second part (with -ne and subjunctive). Let me in this case attempt a translation:

When a certain speaker thought that he was perhaps arousing pity by (his) speech, he asked Catulus whether he seemed to be arousing pity.​Is it correct?

What I am looking for especially is a general pattern concerning the -ne in such cases. I know of indirect questions and so on, but I think I need explanation in this case. I need a concise and clear explanation, an essential pattern to follow.

Using knowledge taken so far and intuition, I would for example think that the following is correct, but you tell me:

Nescit sitne verum.
He does not know whether it is true.​
Thanks.


----------



## Scholiast

A warm welcome, O Fili Regis, ad Forum nostrum Latinum.



Filius Regis said:


> rogavit Catulum videreturne misericordiam movisse.





Filius Regis said:


> he asked Catulus whether he seemed to be arousing pity.



This looks to me admirable as a translation of what was perhaps a clumsily phrased and artificial sentence. I think one might normally expect _num_ rather than _-ne_, but certainly the subjunctive mood is called for. I have however now checked in _OLD_ s.v. _-ne_ (§ 4) and this usage in an indirect question is attested in Plautus, Cicero and Caesar, but seems otherwise a little unusual.

Σ


----------



## Filius Regis

Thank you for the welcome.

Can you show your findings from the OLD, Scholiast?

Thanks.


----------



## Scholiast

OK, transcribed, the relevant entry reads:

*4.* (in indir. qus.) Whether, if.

rogato seruos ueneritne ad eum seruos PL[autus] _Poen._ 181; roget...possitne quae reliqua sient conficere CATO _Agr._ 2.1; iure fecerit et licueritne facere, id est controuersia _Rhet. Her. _1.17; rogaui peruenissentne Agrigentum CIC. _Verr._ 4.27; ignoras Domitius cum fascibusne sit [CIC.] _Att._ 3.15.1; CAES. _Gall._ 5.27.9; NEP. _Han._ 2.4; LIV./ 29.19.21; (_with ellipsis of vb._) quaesiui gladiatoribusne CIC_. Att_. 4.11.1.
cognatos eliserit. illa rogare quantane? HOR. _S_. 2.3.317; interrogatus, quantine eum aestimaret PLIN. _Nat._ 35.25.*

*b* (pleon. w. interr. adjs)
matri denarrat, ut ingens belua cognatos eliserit. illa rogare quantane? HOR. _S. _2.3.317; interrogatus, quantine eum aestimaret PLIN. _Nat._ 35.25.

To my mind the examples cited in *b* are somewhat colloquial, at any rate not quite classically literary.

I hope you can make sense of the abbreviations, but if you need further help, you know where to come.

Σ

*Further Edit: I've been in the Uni. Library today. There are more examples of this oblique interrogative syntax cited (as one might expect) in the _TLL_, s.v. _-ne_ § II A, notably from Cicero.


----------



## bearded

Scholiast said:


> in *b*


Clumsy as I am, I cannot find where/what * b* is.
Scholiast, please be patient and specify. Thank you.


----------



## Scholiast

Yes, bearded, sorry, the omission was due to a clumsy edit on my part. I have now re-edited # 4 to make good the mistake. Thank you for drawing attention to it.

Σ


----------

