Latin 2 Quiz: Infinitive Phrases
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Infinitive PhrasesQuestion 1 of 10

Consul pacem facere potuit, sed milites pugnare volebant. Tandem consul milites secum venire iussit.

Which translation of the entire passage is most accurate, and what grammatical evidence from the Latin best supports your choice?

'The consul could make peace, but the soldiers were wanted to fight. Finally, the consul was ordered by the soldiers to come with them.' This passive reading treats both 'volebant' and 'iussit' as passive forms, with 'milites' as the nominative agent in the first clause and 'milites' as the nominative subject issuing the command in the second.
'The consul was able to make peace, but the soldiers wanted to fight. Finally, the consul ordered himself to come with the soldiers.' This reading takes 'milites' as a nominative subject of 'iussit' and 'secum' as reflexive referring back to the consul, making the consul the object of his own command and the soldiers the accompanying party.
'The consul was able to make peace, but the soldiers wanted to fight. Finally, the consul ordered the soldiers to come with him.' This is supported by: 'pacem facere' as a complementary infinitive with 'potuit' (same subject: consul); 'pugnare' as a complementary infinitive with 'volebant' (same subject: soldiers); and 'milites' as the accusative subject of 'venire' after 'iussit,' indicating a different subject from the consul.
'The consul was able to make peace, but the soldiers wanted to fight. Finally, the consul ordered the soldiers to have come with him already.' This requires the perfect infinitive for 'venire,' since 'iussit' is in the perfect tense and Latin demands that any infinitive following a perfect-tense governing verb must also appear in the perfect tense to maintain sequence.
← Back to quizzes

Latin 2 Quiz

Latin 2 Quiz: Infinitive Phrases

Practice Infinitive Phrases in Latin 2 with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Infinitive Phrases, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Latin 2.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Consul pacem facere potuit, sed milites pugnare volebant. Tandem consul milites secum venire iussit.

Which translation of the entire passage is most accurate, and what grammatical evidence from the Latin best supports your choice?

  1. 'The consul could make peace, but the soldiers were wanted to fight. Finally, the consul was ordered by the soldiers to come with them.' This passive reading treats both 'volebant' and 'iussit' as passive forms, with 'milites' as the nominative agent in the first clause and 'milites' as the nominative subject issuing the command in the second.
  2. 'The consul was able to make peace, but the soldiers wanted to fight. Finally, the consul ordered himself to come with the soldiers.' This reading takes 'milites' as a nominative subject of 'iussit' and 'secum' as reflexive referring back to the consul, making the consul the object of his own command and the soldiers the accompanying party.
  3. 'The consul was able to make peace, but the soldiers wanted to fight. Finally, the consul ordered the soldiers to come with him.' This is supported by: 'pacem facere' as a complementary infinitive with 'potuit' (same subject: consul); 'pugnare' as a complementary infinitive with 'volebant' (same subject: soldiers); and 'milites' as the accusative subject of 'venire' after 'iussit,' indicating a different subject from the consul. (correct answer)
  4. 'The consul was able to make peace, but the soldiers wanted to fight. Finally, the consul ordered the soldiers to have come with him already.' This requires the perfect infinitive for 'venire,' since 'iussit' is in the perfect tense and Latin demands that any infinitive following a perfect-tense governing verb must also appear in the perfect tense to maintain sequence.
Explanation: When you encounter a Latin passage like this, your first move should be identifying the main verb of each clause and its subject, then checking how infinitives connect to those verbs. In the first clause, potuit ("was able") is a defective verb that takes a complementary infinitive — pacem facere — with the consul as the unchanged subject. In the second clause, volebant ("wanted") is clearly active, third-person plural, with milites as its nominative subject and pugnare as the complementary infinitive. These two clauses are straightforward. The real test is the final sentence: consul milites secum venire iussit. The verb iussit ("ordered") is an active perfect indicative with consul as its nominative subject. Critically, iubeo constructs its command using an accusative subject + infinitive: milites is therefore accusative (not nominative), functioning as the subject of the infinitive venire. The reflexive secum ("with him/himself") refers back to the consul, meaning the soldiers are ordered to come with the consul. Answer C captures all of this precisely and provides the correct grammatical labels for each infinitive construction. Answer A is wrong because volebant and iussit are both active forms — Latin has no passive ending here, and the translation invented a passive meaning. Answer B misreads milites as nominative subject of iussit, which would require the consul to be commanding himself — grammatically impossible when consul is already the explicit nominative subject. Answer D invents a rule that doesn't exist: Latin sequence of tenses applies to subjunctive clauses, not to infinitives after iubeo, so a present infinitive is perfectly correct here. Your study tip: memorize that iubeo takes accusative + infinitive, making the accusative noun the logical subject of the action being commanded — this pattern appears constantly in Latin prose.

Question 2

Puellae currere non possunt quod fessae sunt. Puer tamen currere vult.

Which of the following translations of the passage is most accurate, and which grammatical feature most clearly signals the correct reading of 'currere' in each clause?

  1. 'The girls are not able to run because they are tired. The boy, however, wants to run.' In both clauses, 'currere' is a present active infinitive functioning as the object of a verb of ability and wanting respectively, and the absence of an accusative noun before each infinitive confirms that the infinitive's subject is identical to that of the main verb. (correct answer)
  2. 'The girls cannot be run because they are tired. The boy, however, wants to be run.' In both clauses, 'currere' is parsed as a present passive infinitive, since second-conjugation infinitives ending in '-ere' are always passive when used with modal verbs.
  3. 'The girls do not run because they are able to be tired. The boy, however, wants to run.' The word 'possunt' governs 'fessae' as an infinitive complement, while 'currere' in the second sentence is active and correctly paired with 'vult.'
  4. 'The girls are not able to run because they are tired. The boy, however, is able to want to run.' The infinitive 'currere' in the first clause is governed by 'possunt,' but in the second clause 'vult' itself becomes an infinitive complement of an implied 'potest,' which must be supplied from context.
Explanation: When you encounter Latin infinitives paired with modal verbs like posse (to be able) or velle (to want), your first task is identifying the infinitive's form and its grammatical role — specifically, is it functioning as a complementary infinitive completing the main verb's meaning? In this passage, currere is a present active infinitive from the third conjugation verb currere (to run). It appears twice: first as the complement of possunt ("they are able"), then as the complement of vult ("he wants"). In both cases, currere expresses what the subject does or desires to do — a classic complementary infinitive construction. Crucially, no accusative subject appears before either infinitive, which tells you the infinitive's subject is the same as the main verb's subject. The girls can't run; the boy wants to run. Answer A captures this precisely and correctly names the grammatical evidence. Answer B is wrong on two counts: currere is not passive (the present passive infinitive of third-conjugation verbs ends in -ī, e.g., currī), and there is no rule that infinitives with modal verbs are automatically passive — that claim is invented entirely. Answer C misreads the sentence structure by treating possunt as governing fessae ("tired"), a predicate adjective, as if it were an infinitive. Fessae sunt is a separate clause introduced by quod, not an infinitive complement. Answer D fabricates an implied potest in the second sentence. Vult stands independently — no modal verb needs to be supplied from context. Study tip: Always check a Latin infinitive's ending carefully. Active present = -re; passive present (3rd conjugation) = -ī. Knowing this one distinction will prevent the trap in answer B on nearly every similar question.

Question 3

A student wants to translate 'I am not able to see the temple' into Latin and produces: 'Templum videre non possum.' A classmate argues the sentence should be 'Non possum templum videre.' Which assessment is correct?

  1. Only 'non possum templum videre' is correct because Latin strictly requires 'non' to immediately precede the finite verb it modifies. Placing 'non' after 'templum videre,' as in the first version, would negate only the infinitive rather than the finite verb, producing the unintended meaning 'I am able not-to-see the temple' and altering the sense of the sentence.
  2. Both versions are grammatically acceptable Latin. Word order is relatively flexible; both sentences convey the same meaning because 'templum' is unambiguously accusative (direct object of 'videre'), 'videre' is the present active infinitive functioning as the complement of 'possum,' and 'non' negates the ability regardless of its position in the clause. (correct answer)
  3. Only 'templum videre non possum' is correct because classical Latin prose style demands that the finite verb occupy the final position in its clause. Moving 'possum' to an earlier position, as in the second version, violates the firm rule that verbs of ability must always appear at the end of the clause in which they occur.
  4. Neither version is correct because expressing 'I am not able' requires the defective verb 'nequeo' (meaning 'to be unable') rather than 'non possum.' Furthermore, when 'nequeo' is used, the infinitive complement must follow it directly and no accusative object may intervene between 'nequeo' and its infinitive.
Explanation: When translating into Latin, questions about word order and negation can seem tricky — but they're testing a fundamental principle: Latin is an inflected language, meaning grammatical relationships are encoded in word endings, not position. This frees word order to be highly flexible compared to English. In both versions, every word does the same grammatical job regardless of placement. Templum is accusative (direct object of videre) in both sentences. Videre is a present active infinitive serving as the complementary infinitive of possum in both. And non negates the overall ability — the whole idea of "being able" — in both. Native Latin speakers and classical authors moved these elements around freely for emphasis and stylistic rhythm, so both sentences correctly convey "I am not able to see the temple." B is your answer. Answer A is wrong because Latin does not have a strict rule requiring non to immediately precede the finite verb. Non negates the clause as a whole, and its position can shift without splitting the meaning between "negating the infinitive" versus "negating the finite verb" the way English sometimes would. Answer C is wrong because while Latin prose frequently places finite verbs at the end of a clause, this is a strong tendency in style — not an inviolable grammatical rule, and certainly not one specific to verbs of ability like possum. Answer D is wrong because non possum is perfectly standard classical Latin for "I am not able." While nequeo exists as an alternative, it is not required, and the rule described about accusative objects is invented. Study tip: On Latin grammar questions, always ask yourself: does the word ending determine meaning, or does position? In Latin, endings do the heavy lifting — position is for emphasis and style.

Question 4

Magister discipulos legere et scribere docet. Discipuli legere possunt, sed scribere nolunt.

Based on the passage, which statement about the infinitive phrases is grammatically accurate?

  1. In 'scribere nolunt,' the infinitive 'scribere' is the complement of 'nolunt' (they are unwilling/do not want), and because 'nolo' is the compound of 'non' + 'volo,' it follows the same syntactic pattern as 'volo': the infinitive's subject matches the subject of the main verb when no accusative is present, meaning the students themselves are unwilling to write. (correct answer)
  2. In 'scribere nolunt,' 'nolunt' is a verb of motion rather than a verb of wanting, so 'scribere' functions as a supine indicating purpose rather than a true infinitive complement, meaning the students do not go away in order to write.
  3. In 'legere possunt,' the infinitive 'legere' serves as the nominative subject of 'possunt,' while in 'scribere nolunt,' 'scribere' shifts to functioning as a dative of purpose, reflecting a standard alternation that occurs when two infinitives appear in the same sentence.
  4. Both 'legere possunt' and 'scribere nolunt' contain infinitives that are passive in meaning because 'possum' and 'nolo' always trigger passive infinitive complements when their subjects are plural, making the correct translation 'they are able to be read' and 'they are unwilling to be written.'
Explanation: When you see Latin infinitives paired with verbs like possum, volo, or nolo, ask yourself: what grammatical role does the infinitive play, and who performs its action? These verbs take complementary infinitives — infinitives that complete the meaning of the main verb — and when no accusative subject appears, the infinitive's implied subject matches the main verb's subject. Answer A is correct because nolo ("to be unwilling, to not want") is a compound of non + volo, and like volo, it takes a complementary infinitive. In scribere nolunt, there is no accusative noun to serve as the infinitive's subject, so the subject of nolunt — the students (discipuli) — is also the understood subject of scribere. The students themselves are unwilling to write. The same logic applies to legere possunt: the students are able to read. Answer B is wrong because nolo is emphatically not a verb of motion. The supine is a verbal noun used with motion verbs (e.g., lusum eo, "I go to play"), and nolunt has nothing to do with going anywhere. This is a fabricated grammatical category for this context. Answer C is wrong because Latin infinitives do not "alternate" between nominative and dative functions based on how many appear in a sentence. Infinitives here consistently function as complements, not subjects or datives of purpose — no such rule exists. Answer D is wrong because possum and nolo do not trigger passive infinitives based on plural subjects. Active infinitives (legere, scribere) remain active regardless of the subject's number. Study tip: Memorize that volo, nolo, malo, and possum all take complementary infinitives in the active voice — the infinitive's subject defaults to the main verb's subject unless an accusative is explicitly provided.

Question 5

Servus laborare diu non poterat. Dominus tamen eum laborare iussit.

A student claims that 'eum laborare' in the second sentence is structured exactly like an accusative + infinitive indirect statement introduced by a verb of saying. Which response most accurately evaluates this claim?

  1. The claim is entirely wrong: 'eum laborare' is a nominative absolute construction in which 'eum' serves as a predicate nominative and 'laborare' functions as an ablative of manner, a structure unrelated to both indirect statement and infinitive phrases with verbs of wanting.
  2. The claim is entirely correct: 'eum laborare' is a fully formed indirect statement because any Latin verb that governs an accusative + infinitive construction automatically produces an indirect statement, regardless of the semantic class of the governing verb.
  3. The claim is entirely wrong: 'eum' is not accusative but rather a dative pronoun here, and 'laborare' is a gerund used as the object of the dative, a construction unique to verbs of commanding that has no parallel with indirect statement whatsoever.
  4. The claim is partially correct in form but misleading in function: 'eum laborare' does use an accusative ('eum') + infinitive ('laborare'), the same surface structure as indirect statement, but here it follows 'iussit' (a verb of commanding), not a verb of saying or thinking. The accusative + infinitive after 'iubeo' expresses a command directed at the accusative person, not a reported proposition. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you see an accusative + infinitive construction in Latin, your first instinct might be to label it "indirect statement" — but that's only correct if the governing verb belongs to the right semantic class. Latin uses the accusative + infinitive structure in two distinct contexts: indirect statement (after verbs of saying, thinking, or perceiving) and commands/wishes (after verbs like iubeo, volo, cogo). The surface form looks identical, but the grammatical function differs fundamentally. In this passage, iussit comes from iubeo, a verb of commanding. So eum laborare means "ordered him to work" — the accusative marks the person receiving the command, and the infinitive expresses what they're commanded to do. This is not a reported proposition; it's a directed order. Answer D captures this precisely: the student is right that the surface structure matches indirect statement, but wrong to call it one, because iussit changes everything about the function. Answer A is pure fabrication — there is no "nominative absolute" in Latin (that's a Greek construction), and describing laborare as an "ablative of manner" is grammatically nonsensical here. Answer B overcorrects in the opposite direction, claiming that any verb governing accusative + infinitive automatically produces indirect statement — this ignores the critical role of verb semantics entirely. Answer C is factually wrong: eum is accusative, not dative, and laborare is an infinitive, not a gerund. As a study strategy, always identify the governing verb's semantic class before labeling an accusative + infinitive construction. Ask yourself: is this verb saying/thinking, or wanting/commanding? That question alone will keep you from confusing these two structures on the exam.

Question 6

Poeta carmina pulchra scribere cupiebat. Amici eius carmina audire cupiebant.

Which analysis of the infinitive phrases in this passage is most grammatically precise?

  1. In the second sentence, 'carmina' must be reanalyzed as the accusative subject of 'audire,' meaning 'the friends desired the songs to hear (themselves),' because any accusative noun appearing before a complementary infinitive automatically becomes the subject of that infinitive rather than its object.
  2. In both sentences, 'cupiebat/cupiebant' (imperfect of 'cupio,' a verb of desiring synonymous in syntax with 'volo') governs a complementary infinitive. In the first, 'scribere' has no accusative subject—the poet desires to write. In the second, 'audire' also has no accusative subject—the friends desire to hear. In neither sentence does one person desire another person to perform the action; both follow the same-subject pattern. (correct answer)
  3. In the first sentence, 'carmina pulchra' is the accusative subject of 'scribere,' meaning someone other than the poet performs the writing; the poet merely desires beautiful songs to write themselves. This follows the rule that accusative nouns always take subject function over object function when paired with an infinitive.
  4. Both sentences require the friends or the poet to be expressed in the accusative before their respective infinitives, because 'cupio' belongs to a special class of third-conjugation verbs that always demand an expressed accusative subject before their infinitive complements, even when that subject is identical to the main verb's subject.
Explanation: When you see a question about infinitives with verbs like cupio, volo, or possum, ask yourself one key question: who is performing the action of the infinitive, and is it the same person as the subject of the main verb? In both sentences here, the poet and the friends are desiring to do something themselves. Cupio in these constructions takes a complementary infinitive — an infinitive that simply completes the meaning of the main verb, with no separate accusative subject. "The poet desired to write" and "the friends desired to hear" are clean same-subject constructions. Carmina pulchra in sentence one is the direct object of scribere (beautiful songs are what the poet wants to write), and carmina in sentence two is the direct object of audire (songs are what the friends want to hear). Answer B captures this precisely and is correct. Answer A is wrong because it invents a rule that doesn't exist: accusative nouns before a complementary infinitive do not automatically become subjects of that infinitive. An accusative noun paired with an infinitive signals a subject only in the indirect statement (accusative + infinitive) construction, not in complementary infinitive phrases where the main verb's subject already performs the action. Answer C makes the same error in reverse — misreading carmina pulchra as the subject of scribere, which would absurdly imply the songs write themselves. Answer D is simply fabricated. Cupio does not belong to any special class requiring an expressed accusative subject when the subjects are identical. Study tip: Distinguish complementary infinitives (same subject, no accusative subject expressed) from indirect statement infinitives (different subject, accusative subject required). This distinction appears frequently on Latin exams.

Question 7

Marcus dicit: "Volo Romam ire, sed mater mea vult me domi manere."

In the passage above, which of the following best captures the grammatical relationship between 'vult' and 'me manere,' and how does it differ from the construction with 'volo ire'?

  1. 'Vult me manere' is an indirect statement where 'me' is the accusative subject of the infinitive 'manere,' indicating that the mother wants someone other than herself to stay; 'volo ire' lacks an accusative subject because the subject of 'volo' and the subject of 'ire' are the same person. (correct answer)
  2. 'Vult me manere' uses 'me' as a dative of reference, showing the person for whose benefit the staying occurs, while 'volo ire' uses a bare infinitive because 'ire' is an irregular verb that cannot take an accusative subject.
  3. Both constructions are identical in structure; 'me' in 'vult me manere' is simply an emphatic accusative reinforcing the subject of 'vult,' just as 'ego' could optionally appear before 'volo ire' for emphasis.
  4. 'Vult me manere' is a purpose clause disguised as an infinitive phrase, where 'me' is an ablative of means describing how the staying is accomplished, while 'volo ire' is a true infinitive of purpose with no subject expressed.
Explanation: When you see a Latin verb of wanting or wishing (volo, nolo, malo) followed by an infinitive, ask yourself: is the subject of the main verb the same as the "subject" of the infinitive, or is it a different person? That question unlocks the construction being tested here. When Marcus says volo ire, he wants himself to go — the subject of volo and the implied subject of ire are identical (Marcus). Latin handles this simply: the infinitive stands alone with no separate accusative subject needed. But when his mother uses vult me manere, she wants someone else — Marcus — to stay. Latin signals this different subject by placing it in the accusative case (me) directly before the infinitive. This is the accusative + infinitive (indirect statement / indirect command) construction: me is the accusative subject of manere, making clear that the staying falls to a person other than the one doing the wanting. Answer A captures this contrast precisely and is correct. Answer B is wrong because me is not a dative of reference — it is accusative, and the explanation about ire being irregular is simply invented; ire functions normally with accusative subjects when subjects differ. Answer C is wrong because me here is not emphatic reinforcement of vult's subject; calling it equivalent to an optional ego confuses grammatical function with stylistic emphasis — they are structurally different. Answer D is wrong because neither phrase is a purpose clause; purpose clauses in Latin use ut + subjunctive or a supine, not an infinitive with an accusative subject. Study tip: Whenever you see volo/nolo/malo + infinitive, check for an accusative noun or pronoun between them — its presence tells you the subjects differ, and that accusative is the infinitive's subject.

Question 8

Consider the two sentences: (1) 'Pueri ludere volunt.' (2) 'Mater pueros ludere vult.' Which statement correctly identifies a grammatical difference and explains its implication for translation?

  1. The two sentences are grammatically identical in the structure of the infinitive phrase; the only difference is that sentence (2) adds 'pueros' as a redundant nominative in apposition to the implied subject of 'vult,' emphasizing that the mother—who is also called 'pueros' poetically—wants to play.
  2. In sentence (1), 'ludere' is a present active infinitive; in sentence (2), 'ludere' must be reanalyzed as a present passive infinitive because the presence of 'pueros' in the accusative forces a passive reading, yielding 'The mother wants the boys to be played with.'
  3. In sentence (1), 'ludere' has no expressed accusative subject, so the boys themselves want to play; in sentence (2), 'pueros' is the accusative subject of 'ludere,' indicating that it is the mother who wants the boys—not herself—to play. The shift from no accusative to an expressed accusative signals a change in who performs the action of the infinitive. (correct answer)
  4. In sentence (1), 'volunt' is third person plural agreeing with 'pueri'; in sentence (2), 'vult' is third person singular agreeing with 'mater.' This numerical difference changes 'ludere' from a complementary infinitive in sentence (1) to a predicate nominative infinitive in sentence (2), altering the translation to 'The mother is a wanting-to-play person for the boys.'
Explanation: When you see Latin sentences pairing a verb of wanting (volo/vult/volunt) with an infinitive, you're being tested on the accusative subject of the infinitive — one of Latin's most important indirect statement and complementary infinitive constructions. In sentence (1), Pueri ludere volunt, the boys (pueri, nominative) are the subject of volunt, and since no separate accusative appears, the implied subject of ludere is the same as the main subject: the boys want themselves to play. In sentence (2), Mater pueros ludere vult, the mother (mater) is the subject of vult, but pueros appears in the accusative — and accusative nouns can function as the subject of an infinitive. This signals that someone other than the main subject performs the infinitive's action: the mother wants the boys to play. Answer C correctly identifies this shift: the expressed accusative pueros marks who carries out ludere, changing the logical actor entirely. Answer A is simply wrong — pueros is not a "redundant nominative," and no poetic reidentification is happening here. Answer B invents a rule that doesn't exist: ludere is always the active infinitive "to play," and the presence of an accusative subject never forces a passive reading. Answer D correctly notes the number difference between volunt and vult, but then fabricates a grammatical category ("predicate nominative infinitive") that Latin does not have — that invented translation is nonsense. Your takeaway: whenever you see an accusative noun before an infinitive, ask yourself whether it's the infinitive's subject. If the main verb's subject differs from that accusative, you have a classic accusative-subject-of-infinitive construction.

Question 9

Which Latin sentence most accurately expresses the meaning 'The queen wanted her soldiers to return to the city'?

  1. Regina milites suos in urbem rediisse volebat. The perfect infinitive 'rediisse' is required here because the returning is conceived as happening simultaneously with the wanting, and Latin demands the perfect infinitive—not the present—to express simultaneous action after a verb of desire.
  2. Regina milites suos in urbem redire volebat. However, 'milites' here is a vocative of address, so the sentence actually means 'O soldiers, the queen wanted to return to the city herself,' with the queen as the implied subject of 'redire' and 'milites' standing outside the main clause grammatically.
  3. Regina militibus suis in urbem redire volebat. Latin requires the dative case for the subject of any infinitive that follows a verb of wanting when the main subject is feminine, so 'militibus' (dative plural) correctly identifies who is to do the returning.
  4. Regina milites suos in urbem redire volebat. Here 'milites suos' serves as the accusative subject of the infinitive 'redire,' showing that the soldiers—not the queen—perform the returning, and 'volebat' (imperfect active of volo) correctly expresses the queen's past desire. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you see a Latin sentence involving a verb like volo (to want) paired with another action performed by a different subject, you're being tested on the accusative + infinitive (AcI) construction. Latin expresses "X wants Y to do something" by putting Y in the accusative case and using a present infinitive for action happening at the same time as the main verb. Answer D is correct because it handles the AcI perfectly. Milites suos (accusative plural) serves as the subject of the infinitive redire (present infinitive of redeo), meaning the soldiers—distinct from the queen—are the ones doing the returning. Volebat is the imperfect active third-person singular of volo, correctly expressing the queen's desire in past time. The construction maps cleanly: Regina [main subject] milites suos [accusative subject of infinitive] in urbem redire [infinitive phrase] volebat [main verb]. Answer A misleads you with a false grammar rule. Rediisse is the perfect infinitive, which indicates action completed before the main verb—not simultaneous with it. The queen wanted them to return at that time, not to have already returned before she wanted it. Answer B contains a fabricated claim: milites in that sentence is straightforwardly accusative, not vocative. Vocatives require direct address and typically appear with o; nothing in the sentence signals that. Answer C invents a rule that simply does not exist—Latin never requires dative for the AcI subject based on the main subject's gender. The AcI subject is always accusative. Your study tip: memorize that AcI = accusative noun + present infinitive for simultaneous action. Any answer that changes the case of that noun or swaps the infinitive tense is almost certainly wrong.

Question 10

A student translates 'Romani hostes vincere volebant' as 'The Romans were wanted to conquer the enemies.' Which analysis best explains why this translation is wrong and provides the correct rendering?

  1. The student treated 'volebant' as a passive verb, but 'volebant' is the imperfect active indicative of 'volo,' meaning 'they were wanting/wanted.' The correct translation is 'The Romans wanted to conquer the enemies,' where 'vincere' is the active infinitive complement of 'volebant' and 'Romani' is both the subject of 'volebant' and the implied subject of 'vincere.' (correct answer)
  2. The student correctly identified 'volebant' as passive but failed to recognize that 'hostes' must be in the dative case. The correct translation is 'The Romans were wanting the enemies to be conquered,' where 'vincere' is a passive infinitive whose dative subject is 'hostes.'
  3. The student confused the tense of 'volebant,' translating it as a perfect passive rather than an imperfect active. The correct translation is 'The Romans had been wanted to conquer the enemies,' preserving the passive voice but shifting to the pluperfect tense to reflect the '-bant' ending.
  4. The student mistook 'hostes' for the subject of the sentence instead of the object. The correct translation is 'The enemies wanted the Romans to conquer,' where 'Romani' becomes the accusative subject of the infinitive 'vincere' and 'hostes' is reanalyzed as the nominative subject of 'volebant.'
Explanation: When you encounter a Latin sentence with volo (to want/wish), the critical first step is correctly identifying the verb's voice and its infinitive complement. Volo and its forms are always active — Latin has no passive forms of this verb — and it regularly takes an active infinitive to express what the subject wants to do. In Romani hostes vincere volebant, volebant is the imperfect active indicative third-person plural of volo, meaning "they were wanting" or "they wanted." Romani (nominative plural) is the subject, hostes (accusative plural) is the direct object of vincere, and vincere is the active infinitive completing volebant. Answer A correctly captures all of this: "The Romans wanted to conquer the enemies," with Romani serving as the implied subject of vincere as well. Answer B is wrong on two counts: it wrongly accepts the passive reading of volebant (impossible in Latin) and invents a dative hostes that doesn't exist in the sentence. Answer C compounds the error by claiming volebant is a perfect passive and then shifting to a pluperfect — volebant has the classic imperfect -bant ending and is entirely active. Answer D misreads the case roles entirely, reanalyzing hostes as nominative subject and Romani as an accusative subject of the infinitive, which contradicts the actual nominative ending of Romani and the accusative ending of hostes. A reliable study tip: whenever you see volo, nolo, or malo, expect an active infinitive complement and remember these verbs never appear in the passive. Spotting that pattern immediately rules out half the distractors on questions like this.