Passive in Indirect Statements

[Tony Vella]

Hello.

My current lesson is about indirect statements but it involves also passive
voice uses, for example:
They think that the letter was written by us
They think that the letter was being written by us.

I'm having some difficulties with these [there are a dozen more but no way
of know if my translation is right or wrong.

I translated these as:
Putant a nobis litteram scriptam est.
Putant a nobis litteram scriptam erat.

but I don't feel very comfortable with either one without knowing exactly
why. Can someone please help me and let me know if there are any "tricks of
the trade" for learning this combination ( passive voice in indirect
statements) ?

Thanks in advance.
--
Tony Vella
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
http://www.amedialuz.ca

[Johannes Patruus]

As B.T. has told you, indirect statements require the
accusative-and-infinitive construction which, by the way, we have in
English sentences such as "I believe this to be the case" (= "I believe
that this is the case").

Patruus

[Ed Cryer]

On 06/10/2011 02:27, Tony Vella wrote:

You'll have to tackle "oratio obliqua" in the grammar books. It's very,
very important for classical Latin, and will catch you out time and
again unless you have some mastery of it.

As regards "was written" and "was being written" see my reply to BT
Raven above".

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

On 06/10/2011 04:11, B. T. Raven wrote:

> Tony Vella wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> My current lesson is about indirect statements but it involves also
>> passive voice uses, for example:
>> They think that the letter was written by us
>

> Putant litteram a nobis scriptam fuisse. (for instance the letter A or B)
> Putant litteras a nobis scriptas fuisse.
>
>> They think that the letter was being written by us (while we were eating)
> Without concomitant verb there is probably no difference from above
> sentence.
>
> Putant litteras a nobis scriptas fuisse [esse](inter cenandum)
>
> But that may mean that they think while they are eating that ....
>
> Maybe:
>
> Putant litteras a nobis scribi...??
>
> I don't know if Latin can express past tense, progressive aspect in the
> passive voice. Anyone have any suggestions other than with supine?
> "Putant litteras a nobis scriptum iri" which is maybe not grammatical
> and future tense anyway.
>

It's a problem area, yes? I go, and, I am going. The progressive present
tense.
Spanish, for example, has one, but not French.
Quo vadis? Where go you? Where are you going?

The imperfect in Latin is used to set background, things that were
happening while something happened in the foreground.
I was walking in the woods when suddenly a storm arose.
In silva ambulabam cum tempestas repente coorta est.
Dum in silva ambulabam repente coorta est tempestas.

But put that into indirect speech and the problem arises.
He said that he was walking in the woods and a storm arose.
Se in silva ambulavisse tempestatemque repente cortam esse.

It's lost the background/ foreground effect. And so you have to use a
different syntax to retain it. A couple of ways;
Dixit se in silva ambulante tempestatem repente coortam esse.
Dixit tempestatem subito coortam esse dum in silva ambularet.

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

Postscript for future tense.

He said that he would be walking in the woods when a storm would arise.
Dixit se ambulante in silva tempestatem coortum iri.
Dixit se in silva ambulaturum esse atque ex inopinato coortum iri
tempestatem.

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

>>> different syntax to retain it. A couple of ways;Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:34:50 +0000 (UTC)
> Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:43:39 +0000 (UTC)

>>> Dixit se in silva ambulante tempestatem repente coortam esse.
>>> Dixit tempestatem subito coortam esse dum in silva ambularet.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Postscript for future tense.
>>
>> He said that he would be walking in the woods when a storm would arise.
>> Dixit se ambulante in silva tempestatem coortum iri.
>> Dixit se in silva ambulaturum esse atque ex inopinato coortum iri
>> tempestatem.
>>
>> Ed
>
>

> Intransitive verbs have supines (coortum, ambulatum) but I don't think
> they have (personal) future passives or any passives, including things
> like "coortum iri." What would "to be going to be begun, happened, etc.
> mean? Scriptum iri is okay because scribo is transitive.
> Btw, when you say (above) "see my reply to BT Raven above." it is above
> in the stratigraphic sense (after in time). Since message packets are
> sent around the globe via routes that can't be controlled or known in
> advance, I thought that maybe what I received at 05:02 local time might
> really have been sent after what I received at 05:33. But since the
> respective injection times were:
>
>
> Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:34:50 +0000 (UTC)
> Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:43:39 +0000 (UTC)
>
> you should have said (I think) "see my reply to BT Raven below." Hardly
> a big deal; I'm sure I've made the same mistake. Now that we suspect
> that neutrinos can arrive at their destinations even before they set
> out, it's less interesting that messages sent 9 minutes apart arrive
> half and hour apart. As Xerxes might have said to his champion Persian
> courier "you got some splainin' to do Lucy."
>
> Eduardus

Oops, mea culpa!
It's a good thing to have several experienced heads in this Latin group;
a bit like "scientific method" wherein experiments are replicated by others.

What do you think of "coorturam esse" or even "coorituram esse"?

You use Thunderbird, no? I do too, but I'm on version 7.0.1 and you're
on 2.0.0.23. What mine does is rearrange the threads based on the latest
message. Given that fact I'm not going to scratch my head over the
"above & below" problem you've tackled. As to neutrinos in the latest
particle accelerator findings, well, quantum theory has always befuddled
my brain, and this latest finding isn't going to get me rushing out on
the streets waving a banner saying "Einstein was wrong". No, I'll just
wait a while.

Ed