Subordinate clauses within indirect speech

The hashtag for this part of the lesson: #thingstheyprobablydidnttellyouinintrolatin.

This material is important, since you'll come across it often in your reading, and it isn't terribly difficult; but since it's often left until the very last days of an intro course, or even omitted altogether, many students remain confused about it for a long time. So: don't be put off if it's new to you. The great thing about this material is that it works by common sense rules!

First, we're going to be talking about indirect discourse again. This applies to indirect questions and indirect statements, though our examples will all be statements, for clarity's sake. Remember that... I ndirect statement clauses use an infinitive verb with an accusative subject. Indirect questions use a subjunctive verb, nominative subject.

We're not going to be talking about just any old indirect clauses, but rather, ones that have their own subordinate clauses. So, just because, let's remind ourselves along the way of the kinds of subordinate clause that Latin can express:

relative: he loves the girl who lives by the sea causal: he loves her because she is kind concessive: he loves her although she is mean temporal: he loves her when the sun shines circumstantial: he loves her, given that the sun is shining [no good equivalent for this in English] indirect statement: he told her that he loved her indirect question: he asked her whether she loved him indirect command: he demanded that she love him purpose: he flattered her so that she would love him result: he so flattered her that she came to love him conditional: if he flatters her, she'll love him

What all of these have in common is that the information they express is dependent on the information in the main clause (and so we often call them dependent clauses). If the main clause doesn't say anything, the subordinate clause will be meaningless. dependent Because of that dependent relationship, when a subordinate clause depends not upon a real main clause, but upon another subordinate clause, it will be affected by the nature of that other subordinate clause. In particular, since it is now at two removes from the factuality of the main clause, it will tend to use a subjunctive verb, even when its own structure does not call for one.

Let me repeat that: Subordinate clauses that depend on other subordinate clauses will tend to use a subjunctive verb, even when their own structure calls for an indicative. Let me repeat that: Subordinate clauses that depend on other subordinate clauses will tend to use a subjunctive verb, even when their own structure calls for an indicative.

This makes sense because one of the main jobs of the subjunctive is to express hypothetical or conditional facts - ones that we can't simply "point to" as real, true things in the world as we do with the indicative.

One more introductory point: with most subordinate constructions, this is either marginally impossible (try subordinating one “if clause” to another without using "and"), just not that surprising (if one purpose clause is subordinate to another, why wouldn't it use a subjunctive?) so tricky that Latin gives us a break and lets the clause follow its normal rules (again, conditionals that take subordinate clauses tend to let them act as we'd expect, unless the speaker is a pedant).

Most of the time, when we find this going on, it'll be in clauses that are subordinate to indirect speech. So lets pause to consider some examples in English: subordinate to indirect speech

he said he loved the girl who lived by the sea

he said he loved her because she was kind.

he said he loved her although she was mean

he said he loved her when the sun shone

he said he loved her, given that the sun was shining

he said that he'd already told her that he loved her

he said he hadn't asked her whether she loved him

he said that he'd demanded that she love him

he said he was flattering her so that she would love him

he said that he flattered her so well that she came to love him

he said that if he flattered her, she would love him

To dispose of a couple of things quickly: indirect statement will always use accusative infinitive, even in these circumstances: "dixit se iam dixisse se puellam amare" [I know... not very elegant Latin] Most of the time, moreover, when a subordinate clause calls for a subjunctive verb itself, this nesting of clauses won't have any noticeable effect (but see below on sequence of tenses). To dispose of a couple of things quickly: indirect statement will always use accusative infinitive, even in these circumstances: "dixit se iam dixisse se puellam amare" [I know... not very elegant Latin] Most of the time, moreover, when a subordinate clause calls for a subjunctive verb itself, this nesting of clauses won't have any noticeable effect (but see below on sequence of tenses).

This will matter most when our subordinate clause would normally use an indicative verb: so relative clauses, causal clauses certain temporal and conditional clauses. In these cases, we'll see unexpected subjunctives. unexpected subjunctives.

Examples : amavit puellam quae prope mare vivebat Secondary sequence: dixit se puellam amare quae prope mare viveret. Primary sequence: dicit se puellam amare quae prope mare vivat.

Before we go any further, let's take note of a fundamental, common sense rule: in all these instances, there is the possibility that the subordinate clause is something that our speaker (not the reported speaker) is adding on: he says he loves a girl - you know, the one that lives by the sea - or even that it is part of the reported speech but our speaker considers it to true and wants to let us know. In such a case, the subjunctive would not be used - instead, the indicative would show that the main speaker (our author, for instance - Cicero in this module) subscribes to the clause as a fact, not as truly dependent on that indirect speech clause. Before we go any further, let's take note of a fundamental, common sense rule: in all these instances, there is the possibility that the subordinate clause is something that our speaker (not the reported speaker) is adding on: he says he loves a girl - you know, the one that lives by the sea - or even that it is part of the reported speech but our speaker considers it to true and wants to let us know. In such a case, the subjunctive would not be used - instead, the indicative would show that the main speaker (our author, for instance - Cicero in this module) subscribes to the clause as a fact, not as truly dependent on that indirect speech clause.

Let’s repeat that idea for emphasis: When I report a speaker’s subordinate clause, if I can assent to it’s truth, I may use an indicative verb. If I do not wish to assent to its truth, I will use a subjunctive verb. Note: that doesn’t mean I necessarily disagree with it; I’m just leaving it as part of the reported speech, and expressing no opinion either way.

This is clearest, and most important, with causal clauses. Consider: dixit se puellam amare quod suavis esset.He said he loved the girl because [as he argued] she was delighful dixit se puellam amare quod suavis erathe said he loved the girl because [and it's true] she was delightful

Because of this flexibility, you'll also find that with many relative clauses, when an author sees no reason to question the validity of a relative clause in indirect speech, he won't use the subjunctive, even though he's not making any great effort to support its factuality.

So:dicit se puellam amare quae prope mare vivitshould not always be read as an assertive attempt to confirm the girls location, but rather the avoidance of over- precise and pedantic grammar!

If the verb that introduces a subordinate, subjunctive verb is primary, we've learned that we should use a present (occasionally perfect) subjunctive. If, however, that verb is itself subordinate to a secondary main verb, the whole sentence is considered as secondary, and the imperfect subjunctive will be used.

For example: dicit se malum puellae dare ut puerum amet. he says he gives the apple to the girl so that she'll love the boy dixit se malum puellae dare ut puerum amaret note present infinitive, but imperfect subjunctive (because of dixit) he said he was giving the apple to the girl so that she would love him.

Note that this doesn't work the other way round: a primary main verb won't override a secondary tense in indirect speech: dicit se puellae malum dedisse ut puerum amaret perfect (secondary) infinitive, so imperfect subjunctive, (despite dicit)If you try to think of this in an algorithmic or rule-based way, your head may start to spin: instead, try to see how it makes for good, common sense. In the first example, all the action is in the past. In the second example, though the main action is in the present, everything else is in the past.

One last thing: note that, since the present subjunctive will be used to express and original imperfect in indirect speech, there are many times that the tense of a subjunctive in a clause that's subordinate to that indirect speech is the only thing that tells us whether that infinitive represents a primary tense or a secondary tense in the original direct speech: dicit se puellae malum dare ut puerum amarethe says he was giving the apple to the girl so that she'd love the boy, dicit se puellae malum dare ut puerum amet he says he is giving the apple to the girl so that she’ll love the boy