Reflexive pronouns where there is more than one subject

[Gregorius Textor]

Reflexive pronouns refer to the subject of the sentence or clause in which they occur. But when there is a clause within a clause, or a clause within a sentence, there is more than one subject, and this leads me to some confusion as to where I should or may use "se" and the like.

1. If I write "Mēdus timet nē mīlitēs sē servum fugitivum capiant et Rōmam redūcant/abdūcant", and I intend "se" to refer to Medus, would that be grammatically correct, or should I use "eum" (because se would refer to the milites, although that doesn't make sense semantically)?

2. If I answer "Cūr mercātor Rōmānus trīstis est?" with "Omnēs mercēs eius in fundō maris sunt", that seems correct. But if I answer with "Mercātor trīstis est, quia omnēs mercēs eius in fundō maris sunt", does that still work, because "Mercātor" is the subject of the sentence, although not of the clause? Or would I have to use "suī"? (It doesn't sound good to me, and I would rather still use "eius", but I'm not sure it would be correct.)

3. "Mēdus dīxit dominum sē postulāvisse ut opus sordidum faceret, sed nōn crēdō." Can "sē" refer to Mēdus, as I intend, even though it is the dominum who is the subject of the clause with postulāvisse?

 

[Clemens]

According to Harkness, it depends. He has is subordinate clauses of thought, wish purpose, finality, infinitive clauses, indirect speech, the reflexive generally refers to the subject of the main clause. Otherwise, it generally refers to the subject in the subordinate clause. Based on his examples, I think you also have to rely on what makes the most sense.

 

[Pacifica]

1. If I write "Mēdus timet nē mīlitēs sē servum fugitivum capiant et Rōmam redūcant/abdūcant", and I intend "se" to refer to Medus, would that be grammatically correct, or should I use "eum" (because se would refer to the milites, although that doesn't make sense semantically)?

Se should be used.

2. If I answer "Cūr mercātor Rōmānus trīstis est?" with "Omnēs mercēs eius in fundō maris sunt", that seems correct. But if I answer with "Mercātor trīstis est, quia omnēs mercēs eius in fundō maris sunt", does that still work, because "Mercātor" is the subject of the sentence, although not of the clause? Or would I have to use "suī"? (It doesn't sound good to me, and I would rather still use "eius", but I'm not sure it would be correct.)

Eius is correct in both cases. However, if the sentence were "The merchant says he is sad because all his merchandise is at the bottom of the sea", then you would use the reflexive, because the merchant would be talking about himself. (Note that merces is feminine, so the form used would be suae).

3. "Mēdus dīxit dominum sē postulāvisse ut opus sordidum faceret, sed nōn crēdō." Can "sē" refer to Mēdus, as I intend, even though it is the dominum who is the subject of the clause with postulāvisse?

The reflexive is correct there, because Medus is talking about himself. However, it should be a se.

For the why of all this, you can take a look here, especially part 2.

 

[Dantius]

I always like to show Nepos's sentence "legatos in Bithyniam miserunt, qui ab rege peterent, ne inimicissimum suum secum haberet sibique dederet." "They sent legates to Bithynia to ask the king not to keep their greatest enemy with him and to give him to them." Here secum refers to the king, and suum and sibi refer to the legates/the Romans.

Caesar frequently avoids such situations by changing up some of the pronouns to be non-reflexive, even when strictly they should grammatically all be reflexive.
Helvetii Allobrogibus sese persuasuros existimabant ut per suos fines eos ire paterentur. "The Helvetians thought they would persuade the Allobroges to allow them to go through their territory."
Here suos refers to the subject of the clause (the Allobroges), whereas eos refers to the less proximate subject, the Helvetii, who are the subject of the main clause. Nepos, strictly following the rules, would have made both of them reflexive, but Caesar doesn't like the ambiguity. Sometimes he also uses ipse for the less proximate subject. Helvetiorum legati monuerunt ne ob eam rem aut suae magnopere virtuti tribueret aut ipsos despiceret. "The legates of the Helvetians warned him not to credit his own virtue greatly because of this situation or look down on them."

 

[Pacifica]

Sometimes he also uses ipse for the less proximate subject.

That is more standard than the use of is/ea/id, isn't it?

 

[Dantius]

That is more standard than the use of is/ea/id, isn't it?

Yeah.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Clemens: What Harkness says makes intuitive sense to me. It doesn't have to, but it helps. Looks like a good collection of examples starting at #502.

Pacifica: Your "'Se' vs. 'eum', etc." is exactly the sort of thing I was searching for.

Dantius: What a mind-twister is that sentence for Nepos! And Hail, Caesar--for his care in avoiding ambiguities.

All: Thanks!

 

[Dantius]

And Hail, Caesar--for his care in avoiding ambiguities.

It's an interesting demonstration of a situation where breaking the logical rules actually makes the sentence less, not more, confusing.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

St. Augustine in De doctrina Christiana also recommends sacrificing grammar for the sake of intelligibility.