..Fiunt? Cognoscere velle..

Hermes Trismegistus

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Brasilia
From CAP. XXXIII, LLPSI , "Scitote me omnia quae apud vos fiunt cognoscere velle.", My question is: shouldn't that verb be in the infinitive form, too? Something like ..fieri cognoscere velle..


Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
No. Only the main indirect-statement clause (here me omnia cognoscere velle) goes in the accusative-and-infintive. Subordinate clauses that depend on it (clauses that start with qui, cum, si, nisi, and the like) usually don't.
 

Hermes Trismegistus

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Brasilia
So rewording this would be: " Quae apud vos fiunt, scitote me omnia cognoscere velle." Is it right?
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
I don't get the connection with your initial query but yes, that word order works too.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Wait, why did you change fiunt to faciunt? I didn't notice at first. That changes the meaning somewhat.
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Why though is it fiunt and not fiant?
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
I don't understand
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Subordinate clauses that are an integral part of indirect speech usually take the subjunctive, but there's sometimes a bit of leeway with this.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
I think the most common instances where a subordinate clause doesn't take the subjunctive are when the verb is one of thinking/perceiving rather than speaking, and when the perspective of the indirect statement is that of the speaker. I don't actually have any stats on this, but it is what I have seen.
 
Top