Ōrātiō Oblīqua

Indirect discourse (ōrātiō oblīqua) reports the words, thoughts, claims, or perceptions of another person (or of oneself at another time) through a verb of communication or cognition: dīcō, putō, sciō, sentiō, audiō, videō, scrībō, nūntiō, rogō, imperō, prōmittō, spērō, nesciō.

Direct discourse (ōrātiō rēcta) gives the original words verbatim, set off by quotation. Indirect discourse re-shapes them grammatically, integrating them into the sentence structure of the reporter.

Latin marks indirect discourse with three signature transformations, depending on the type of original utterance:

(1) Statements become accusative + infinitive: original subject → accusative; original finite verb → infinitive (tense relative to main verb).

(2) Questions retain their interrogative word but their verb becomes subjunctive (sequence-of-tenses applies).

(3) Commands have their verb in subjunctive, with ut (positive) or nē (negative); these conjunctions are sometimes elided in extended narrative.

The introducing verb may be expressed in each clause, or — in extended narrative — suppressed once the indirect-discourse mode is established. Caesar and Tacitus often run dozens of clauses in oblique mode before reverting to direct narration. This propagation of subjunctive into all subordinate clauses is called the "oblique" subjunctive (coniūnctīvus oblīquus) and is the most distinctive grammatical feature of long-form Latin oratory and historiography.

A reported statement becomes an accusative + infinitive construction. The subject of the original verb takes the accusative case; the finite verb becomes an infinitive of the appropriate tense.

Both subject and infinitive are required in proper Latin: there is no equivalent of an English "that"-clause that drops the subject. Even when the subject is the same as that of the main verb (i.e., reporting one's own thought), the reflexive sē must be inserted: dīcit sē venīre "he says that he (himself) is coming".

If the subject is a 1st or 2nd person, the corresponding mē, tē, nōs, vōs is used: dīcō mē venīre "I say that I am coming"; dīcis tē venīre "you say that you are coming". Predicate nouns and adjectives in the embedded clause likewise become accusative: scit Caesarem ducem esse "he knows that Caesar is the leader".

Common verbs introducing accusative + infinitive: dīcō, putō, arbitror, exīstimō, crēdō, sciō, ignōrō, nesciō, sentiō, intellegō, audiō, videō, perspiciō, mēminī, oblīvīscor, nūntiō, scrībō, demonstrō, doceō, spērō, prōmittō, polliceor, minor, nōn dubitō.

The infinitive's tense indicates time relative to the main verb (not absolute time). This is the most subtle feature of Latin indirect statement:

Present infinitive = simultaneous with main verb. dīcit Caesarem venīre "he says that Caesar is coming" — Caesar's coming is happening at the moment of the saying. dīxit Caesarem venīre "he said that Caesar was coming" — same English imperfect, because the action is simultaneous with the past saying.

Perfect infinitive = prior to main verb. dīcit Caesarem vēnisse "he says that Caesar has come" — Caesar's coming preceded the saying. dīxit Caesarem vēnisse "he said that Caesar had come" — same English pluperfect.

Future infinitive = subsequent to main verb. dīcit Caesarem ventūrum esse "he says that Caesar will come". dīxit Caesarem ventūrum esse "he said that Caesar would come".

This relative-tense system means a single infinitive form does not commit to past, present, or future absolutely — only to before/at/after the main verb's time. The English translation must compute the absolute time from the main verb's tense plus the infinitive's relative tense.

The future infinitive is built periphrastically: future active participle + esse. For deponent verbs and the future passive, periphrasis with fore ut + subj. is often substituted: dīcit fore ut hostēs vincantur "he says it will come to pass that the enemy be conquered" = "he says the enemy will be conquered".

An indirect question retains its interrogative word (quis, quid, ubi, quandō, cūr, num, an, utrum...an, etc.) but takes the verb in the subjunctive. Tense follows the sequence of tenses (Lectiō XXIX). The future is supplied by the periphrastic -ūrus sim/essem.

Yes/no questions (without an interrogative word) use num (often expecting "no"), -ne (neutral), or are introduced by an (where dubitation is implied).

Choice questions ("whether ... or") use utrum...an, -ne...an, or num...an: quaerit utrum vērum sit an falsum "he asks whether it is true or false". necne = "or not".

Direct command (imperative): Venī! "Come!". Indirect command (after verbs of asking, ordering, persuading, urging, exhorting, decreeing, deciding): the imperative becomes a subjunctive in a clause introduced by ut (positive) or nē (negative).

Common introducing verbs (taking ut/nē + subj.): imperō, mandō, edīcō, dēcernō, cēnseō, ōrō, rogō, postulō, petō, precor, hortor, moneō, suādēō, persuādēō, cōnstituō, ēligō.

Exception: iubeō — "order, command" — uses accusative + infinitive (it treats the command as a statement of will, not as a true command-clause): iussit eōs venīre "he ordered them to come". The verb vetō "forbid" is parallel: vetuit eōs fugere "he forbade them to flee".

In poetry and lively narrative, ut/nē is sometimes elided, leaving the bare subjunctive: tē moneō venias = tē moneō ut veniās "I urge you to come". This is rare in classical prose but common in colloquial Latin.

When a sentence containing subordinate clauses passes into indirect discourse, all subordinate-clause verbs become subjunctive, and the tense is governed by sequence-of-tenses applied to the original (now infinitive) main verb. This is the coniūnctīvus oblīquus.

The principle: in indirect discourse, the entire reported thought is "embedded" in the speaker's mind, so even subordinate clauses are presented as someone else's statements rather than as objective facts. The subjunctive marks this borrowed perspective.

Direct: Caesar dīxit, "Cum vēnerō, vōs salūtābō." "Caesar said, 'When I have come, I will greet you.'"

Indirect: Caesar dīxit cum vēnisset sē salūtātūrum esse "Caesar said that when he had come, he would greet (them)". Notice the transformations:

• Main verb salūtābō (fut. ind.) → salūtātūrum esse (fut. inf.).
• Subordinate cum vēnerō (fut.-perf. ind.) → cum vēnisset (plup. subj. — secondary sequence, prior).
• Subject ego (implicit in vēnerō, salūtābō) → sē (reflexive, refers back to Caesar dīxit's subject).
• Object vōs (in direct) → omitted or rendered as "(them)" — third person from reporter's view.

An exception: an interjected explanation by the reporter, not by the speaker quoted, takes the indicative even within indirect discourse. This is rare and stylistic.

The transformation of conditions into indirect discourse follows precise rules — and is among the most exacting tests of Latin mastery. Six condition types each have their distinctive indirect-discourse pattern.

Simple / factual condition: protasis was indicative → becomes subjunctive (whatever tense fits sequence). Apodosis was indicative → becomes infinitive (acc. + inf.). Direct: sī hoc dīcis, errās. Indirect: dīcō, sī hoc dīcās, tē errāre "I say that, if you say this, you are wrong".

Ideal / future-less-vivid condition: protasis was present subjunctive → remains present subjunctive (timeless). Apodosis was present subjunctive → becomes future infinitive. Direct: sī hoc dīcās, errēs. Indirect: dīcō, sī hoc dīcās, tē errātūrum esse.

Contrary-to-fact present: protasis was imperfect subjunctive → remains imperfect subjunctive. Apodosis was imperfect subjunctive → takes the special periphrastic -ūrum fuisse. Direct: sī hoc dīcerēs, errārēs. Indirect: dīcō, sī hoc dīcerēs, tē errātūrum fuisse "I say that, if you were saying this, you would be wrong".

Contrary-to-fact past: protasis was pluperfect subjunctive → remains pluperfect subjunctive. Apodosis was pluperfect subjunctive → takes -ūrum fuisse (same form as present-CtF apodosis — distinguished by protasis tense). Direct: sī hoc dīxissēs, errāvissēs. Indirect: dīcō, sī hoc dīxissēs, tē errātūrum fuisse.

The peculiar form -ūrum fuisse ("would have been about to do") is the only way Latin can express in an infinitive a contrary-to-fact apodosis — there is no "perfect future infinitive". This periphrasis is one of the most distinctive shapes in literary Latin.

Personal pronouns and time/place words shift to fit the new perspective of the reporter:

Pronouns: original 1st-person (ego, nōs) → reflexive sē or 3rd-person ille; original 2nd-person (tū, vōs) → 3rd-person ille, illī; original demonstrative hīc ("this here") → distal ille ("that there"); original possessive meus, tuus → reflexive suus.

Time and place words:
nunc "now" → tum "then"
hodiē "today" → eō diē "on that day"
herī "yesterday" → prīdiē "the day before"
crās "tomorrow" → posterō diē / postrīdiē "the next day"
hīc "here" → ibi "there"
hūc "hither" → eō "thither"

Caesar's narrative is the canonical training ground for these shifts. His reported speeches in Bellum Gallicum often run for paragraphs in indirect discourse, demonstrating every transformation in concentrated form.