Henle I, Ex. 467, Fifth Sentence.

[Ron]

I'm confused with the use of "passurum" in this sentence:

Itaque negavit se passurum eos per provinciam ire.

Answer Key:

He therefore said that he would not allow them to go through the province.

Shouldn't "passurum" (the future neuter participle) actually be "passurus esse" (the future infinitive active)?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ron

[tanya]

Passurum refers to 'eos per provinciam ire', which is functionally the subject of the indirect discourse -- with se, the meaning is passive -- lit: he denied (said...not) that their going through the province would be allowed (allow itself) -- the verb 'to be' is often omitted in such constructions.

I hope this helps.

Paul O'Brien

[Bonnie]

"Passurum (esse)" has to be masculine accusative to agree with its subject "se" (he, himself, Caesar). After "nego" the clause of indirect discourse starting with "that" takes an accusative subject (se) and infinitive (passurum esse). Then the future infinitive (passurum esse), active in form and meaning, is followed by an accusative subject (eos) with infinitive (ire).

This sentence would be literally translated: Therefore, he said himself (se) not to be about to allow (passurum esse) them (eos) to go through the province (per provinciam ire), or as the answer key says: He therefore said that he would not allow them to go through the province.

See Henle p. 363, ex. 416 on p. 423, p. 453 and Grammar 338, 664, 893 footnote & 899.

[Ron]

Thanks for the thorough explanations.

Ron