In an indirect statement, a Latin infinitive normally expresses relative time. The present infinitive marks an event simultaneous with the governing verb, the perfect infinitive an event anterior to it, and the future infinitive an event posterior to it. Consequently, dīxit eum venīre means “she said that he was coming,” not “she said that he comes”: present venīre is simultaneous with past dīxit.
English speakers must resist reading the infinitive as an absolute tense. First establish the reporting verb’s time, then locate the infinitive’s event before, during, or after it.
The Three-Way Relative System
The following table uses scrībō “write” and a masculine accusative subject. The participles change to agree with a feminine or plural subject.
| Relation to governing verb | Active | Passive | Core interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| simultaneous | scrībere | scrībī | is/was writing; is/was being written |
| anterior | scrīpsisse | scriptum esse | has/had written; has/had been written |
| posterior | scriptūrum esse | scriptum īrī | will/would write; will/would be written |
This system is most explicit in accusative-and-infinitive indirect statement after verbs of saying, thinking, knowing, perceiving, and reporting.
Iūlia dīcit Mārcum epistulam scrībere.
Julia says that Marcus is writing a letter.
Iūlia dīxit Mārcum epistulam scrībere.
Julia said that Marcus was writing a letter.
The infinitive is present in both Latin sentences. What changes in English is the absolute time supplied by dīcit versus dīxit. The writing overlaps the saying in each case.
Present Means Simultaneous, Not Necessarily Present-Day
With a present reporting verb, simultaneity is usually present in absolute time. With a past reporting verb, it is past.
Nūntius affirmat hostēs pontem trānsīre.
The messenger declares that the enemy are crossing the bridge.
Nūntius affirmāvit hostēs pontem trānsīre.
The messenger declared that the enemy were crossing the bridge.
Latin does not need an “imperfect infinitive” to produce English “were crossing.” The past reference point already comes from affirmāvit. Aspect and context decide whether English prefers “were crossing,” “crossed,” or another idiomatic rendering, but the central relation is overlap.
The active and passive follow the same timing rule:
Cōnsul putābat urbem oppugnārī.
The consul thought that the city was being attacked.
Present passive oppugnārī is simultaneous with imperfect putābat. Accusative urbem is the subject of the infinitive, not the object of putābat or oppugnārī.
Perfect Means Anterior, Not One Particular Past Tense
The perfect infinitive says that its event precedes the governing verb. English chooses among simple past, present perfect, and past perfect according to the reporting time and context.
Mārcus dīcit Iūliam herī discessisse.
Marcus says that Julia left yesterday.
Mārcus dīxit Iūliam priōre diē discessisse.
Marcus said that Julia had left the day before.
The Latin infinitive discessisse is identical. With present dīcit, departure is anterior to present saying; with past dīxit, departure is anterior to past saying. The adverb also shifts perspective: direct herī “yesterday” commonly becomes priōre diē “on the preceding day” when reported later.
The perfect passive infinitive consists of a perfect participle agreeing with its accusative subject plus esse.
Senātōrēs sciunt portās clausās esse.
The senators know that the gates have been closed.
Senātōrēs scīvērunt portās clausās esse.
The senators knew that the gates had been closed.
Feminine accusative plural clausās agrees with portās. It is not an invariant infinitive ending; only esse is infinitival.
Future Means Posterior
The future active infinitive combines the future active participle with esse. Its participle agrees in gender, number, and accusative case with the infinitive’s subject.
Mārcus dīcit Iūliam crās ventūram esse.
Marcus says that Julia will come tomorrow.
Mārcus dīxit Iūliam posterō diē ventūram esse.
Marcus said that Julia would come the next day.
Ventūram is feminine accusative singular because Iūliam is. English “would” here is future-in-the-past, not evidence that the Latin has a special conditional infinitive. The future relation is the same in both sentences.
In indirect statement, esse is often omitted after a future participle, especially in compact (formal) and (literary) prose: dīxit sē ventūrum still means “he said that he would come.” A learner should recognize the omission but may retain esse for clarity in composition.
The future passive infinitive uses the supine in -um plus impersonal īrī:
Dux spērat urbem mox captum īrī.
The commander hopes that the city will soon be captured.
Unlike clausās in the perfect passive, captum here is an invariant supine and does not agree with feminine urbem. The construction is relatively uncommon and belongs mainly to (formal) prose. Latin often uses fore ut plus a subjunctive instead, particularly when no convenient supine exists:
Dux spērāvit fore ut urbs mox caperētur.
The commander hoped that the city would soon be captured.
Inside the ut clause, urbs is nominative and caperētur follows the past reference point. The dedicated Future Passive Infinitive page treats these alternatives in detail.
Direct and Indirect Time: A Production Table
Suppose the direct speaker says Gāius laborat / labōrāvit / labōrābit. Reporting it produces these relations:
| Direct proposition | After present dīcit | After past dīxit |
|---|---|---|
| Gāius labōrat | dīcit Gāium labōrāre, says he is working | dīxit Gāium labōrāre, said he was working |
| Gāius labōrāvit | dīcit Gāium labōrāvisse, says he worked | dīxit Gāium labōrāvisse, said he had worked |
| Gāius labōrābit | dīcit Gāium labōrātūrum esse, says he will work | dīxit Gāium labōrātūrum esse, said he would work |
Do not produce the Latin by mechanically matching the tense name in an English translation. “Was working” after “said” calls for present labōrāre because the work was simultaneous with the saying. “Had worked” calls for perfect labōrāvisse because it was earlier.
Where the Relative-Tense Rule Has Limits
Not every infinitive is an indirect statement. A complementary infinitive after possum, cupiō, incipiō, or dēsinō completes the meaning of its governing verb. Its temporal interpretation depends heavily on that verb.
Hodiē manēre possum, sed crās proficīscī cupiō.
I can stay today, but I want to leave tomorrow.
Both manēre and proficīscī are present infinitives. Manēre overlaps the present ability, while proficīscī refers to a desired future action because wanting is naturally prospective. The future sense comes from cupiō and crās, not from a future infinitive.
Commands behave similarly: iubeō eum venīre means “I order him to come,” normally with action subsequent to the order, although venīre is present. This construction is not an assertion that “he is coming.”
The historical infinitive is another exception. In lively (literary) narrative, a present infinitive may replace a finite imperfect or historical present and does not depend on a reporting verb. After meminī, a present infinitive can also recall an action personally witnessed in the past: meminī tē haec dīcere “I remember you saying this.” These established uses should be recognized, not forced into the ordinary three-way indirect-statement diagram.
Caesar illustrates a different lexical effect in an authentic quotation, reproduced without editorial macrons:
totius Galliae sese potiri posse sperant
They hope that they will be able to gain possession of all Gaul. — Caesar, Gallic War 1.3
Present posse acquires future force under prospective spērant. It does not mean that Latin has freely replaced every future infinitive with a present one.
Common Mistakes
Treating the present infinitive as absolute present
❌ Dīxit eum dormīre.
Incorrectly translated as ‘he said that he sleeps’ — dormīre is simultaneous with past dīxit.
✅ Tum dīxit eum dormīre.
Then he said that he was sleeping.
Using a perfect infinitive merely because the reporting verb is past
❌ Dīxit eum dormīvisse.
Incorrect for ‘he said that he was sleeping then’ — dormīvisse makes the sleeping anterior to the saying.
✅ Dīxit eum dormīre.
He said that he was sleeping then.
Failing to make a participle agree
❌ Putat Iūliam ventūrum esse.
Incorrect — the future participle must agree with feminine accusative Iūliam.
✅ Putat Iūliam ventūram esse.
He thinks that Julia will come.
Making the future passive supine agree
❌ Spērat urbem captam īrī.
Incorrect — future passive captum īrī uses an invariant supine in -um.
✅ Spērat urbem captum īrī.
He hopes that the city will be captured.
Applying indirect-statement tense mechanically to a desire
❌ Crās profectūrum esse cupiō.
Incorrect — this imports an accusative-and-future-infinitive frame where cupiō normally takes a same-subject complementary infinitive.
✅ Crās proficīscī cupiō.
I want to leave tomorrow.
Key Takeaways
- In indirect statement, present, perfect, and future infinitives usually mark simultaneity, anteriority, and posteriority relative to the governing verb.
- A present infinitive after a past reporting verb normally produces an English past, while a future infinitive produces future-in-the-past “would.”
- Perfect and future participles agree with the accusative subject, but the supine in future passive captum īrī is invariant.
- Complementary, command, historical, and remembered infinitives have additional lexical or discourse-based timing.
- Build the Latin from temporal relations, not by copying English tense labels or constituent order.
Now practice Latin
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning Latin →Related Topics
- Accusative Subject of the InfinitiveA2 — Recognize the accusative noun or pronoun that serves as the subject inside a Latin infinitival clause.
- Future Infinitives in Indirect StatementB1 — How future active and passive infinitives express posteriority to a verb of saying, thinking, knowing, or expecting.
- Passive Indirect StatementB1 — How Latin reports that something is being done, has been done, or will be done with an accusative subject and a passive infinitive.
- Indirect ReflexivesB2 — How Latin reflexives can refer across a clause boundary to the subject whose speech, thought, or purpose is being represented.
- Complementary InfinitivesA2 — How an infinitive completes the meaning of a modal, volitional, habitual, or phase verb while normally sharing its subject.