Main:  [head verb]

Sub.:  [acc. noun] + [infinitive]

[blank]
consilia and me are the subject accusatives in these sentences, while patere, esse, and videri are the infinitives of indirect statement.  Both sentences are governed by head verbs:  sentis in the former, and cupio in the latter.

Because indirect statements require subject accusatives, you might think that only consilia and me are the direct objects.  Don't be fooled:  the whole clause after each head verb is the object.

NOTE:  In the second sentence, clementem and dissolutum are predicate accusatives.

Main:  [head or inquiry verb]

Sub.:  [question word] + [subjunctive]

[blank]
What makes a direct question different from an indirect question is the subjunctive mood, which marks the fact that the question has been subordinated to a "head" verb.

An example in English.  Who are you? is a direct question.  Let us put a sensory verb in front of this question:  I know who are you.  This is improper English.  Proper:  I know who you are.  A slight change in word order marks the fact that our question is indirect.  So it is with the subjunctive in Latin, a change in mood to reflect a change in sentence structure.

In our example, then, egeris, fueris, and convocaveris are all perfect subjunctives (not future perfect indicatives), which in direct questions would be egisti, fuisti, and convocavisti.

These three indirect questions are the objects of ignorare, which is an infinitive of indirect statement governed by arbitraris.

Main:  [command verb] + [optional receiver noun]

Sub.:  [ut / ne] + [subjunctive]     -or-

Sub.:  [acc. noun] + [infinitive]  (with iubere)

[blank]
As in the case of indirect question, the subjunctive marks the fact that what was once an direct command is now indirect.  The entire clause, from ut through videret, is the object of decrevit.

Had Opimius been ordered not to do something, the subordinating conjunction would have been ne instead of ut.

Main:  [fear verb]

Sub.:  [ne / ut] + [subjunctive]

[blank]
Of all the twisted constructions you will encounter in Latin, clauses of fearing are arguably the most twisted.

The overall concept is simple.   A verb of fearing is a "head" verb, and by now you are used to the idea that this kind of verb can take a clause as a direct object.  You understand, for instance that in the scheme:

I fear [that something will happen],

[that something will happen] is the object of I fear.

The problem lies with the subordinating conjunction.  You might expect ut to be that conjunction:

I fear [ut] [something will happen].

But what Latin prefers is:

I fear [ne] [something will happen],

where ne simply means "that"—without any negative quality at all.

Why?  Let's look at a simplified version of our Ciceronian sentence:

vereor ne quisquam dicat.
I fear that someone will say.

In old Latin, these two ideas would have been paratactic (MF 17, AG), i.e. placed side by side in separate sentences:

ne quisquam dicat.  vereor.
Let someone not say!  I am afraid.

In this scenario, ne quisquam dicat is a direct negative wish.  vereor simply reinforces this wish, giving the reason for it.  When in later Latin the two sentences became combined—through syntaxis (MF 19, AG 268), or more precisely, hypotaxis (MF 15, AG 268)—the word order was changed, but not the ne.

If a ne is translated as "that" in clauses of fearing, then reverse logic dictates that ut is translated "that...not," e.g.:

vereor ut quisquam dicat.
I fear that someone will not say.

In this case, reverse logic is correct.

One point more.  Note that our actual sentence begins verendum erit mihi, which is a passive periphrastic construction.  verendum, then, is a predicate nominative with the linking verb erit:  it will have to be feared by me.

What does verendum modify?  To what does the subject "it" refer?  The answer is one and the same:  the clause ne...dicat.  In other words, the clause [that someone will say] is the true subject of erit.  It is in this case a subject clause rather than an object clause.

Main:  [impersonal verb]

Sub.:  [noun in acc. / dat.] + [infinitive]

[blank]
In both examples, te and its accompanying infinitive clauses are the subjects of the impersonal verbs oportebat and convenit.  Both clauses, as subjects, are what was right and fitting.

Main:  [verb] + [noun, a.k.a. antecedent]

Sub.:  [rel. pronoun] + [indicative verb]

[blank]
The relative clause in this sentence does nothing more than define which decree Cicero means:  not the good decree, not the bad decree, but the [as a result of which it was fitting for you to have been killed] decree.  The clause is an adjective that modifies consultum.

Be careful to distinguish relative clauses from relative clauses of characteristic, which use the subjunctive.

Main:  [verb] + [noun, a.k.a. antecedent]

Sub.:  [rel. pronoun] + [subjunctive verb]

[blank]
The difference between a regular relative clause and a relative clause of characteristic lies in the basic meaning of the subjunctive mood.  If the indicative mood describes facts—things that are—the subjunctive describes almost-facts—things that would, could, should, or might be.

Had Cicero used the indicative:

quisquam erit qui te defendere audet,

we would translate the relative clause as:  someone exists who (in fact) dares defend you.

Replacing audet with audeat means that we are no longer dealing with simple facts, but with possibilities.  The qui-clause no longer refers to the person who dares defend Catiline, but to any person with the characteristic of doing so.

Regardless of our translation, the clause remains adjectival in function.

Main:  [verb] + [noun, a.k.a. antecedent]

Sub.:  [rel. pronoun] + [subjunctive verb]

blank
This relative clause not only modifies the antecedent equites like an adjective, but also indicates why the equites were found.  In other words, it modifes the main clause like an adverb as well.

If we had ut instead of qui, we would have a normal purpose clause.  Compare also supines and gerundives.

Main:  [typical sentence]

Sub.:  [cum] + [indicative / subjunctive verb]

[blank]
When cum means when, it takes the indicative mood, just as with the conjunction ubi.  This usage is called cum-temporal, and is what we have in the above examples.

blank
When cum means since or although, it takes the subjunctive.

Whatever the case, a cum clause is always adverbial in regard to its main clause.

Main:  [action verb]

Sub.:  [ut / ne] + [subjunctive verb]

[blank]
ne...possis fulfills an adverbial function by offering a reason or purpose for the main clause.

Had the purpose been a positive one, the subordinating conjunction would have been ut.

Compare this kind of purpose clause with supines, gerundives, and relative clauses of purpose.

Main:  [action verb]

Sub.:  [ut / ut non] + [subjunctive verb]

[blank]
In most sentences with a result clause, the main clause establishes some extraordinary circumstance—something of such significance that there follows some sort of consequence, or result.

The result itself is introduced by the conjunction ut, as in our example.  The fact that brave men put down an enemy was a result of the extraordinary courage in the republic at that time.

Positive result clauses are easily confused with positive purpose clauses, for both use ut.  Be sure to check the main clause for words like tam, ita, or tantus, which mark the extraordinary qualities that generate result clauses (ista is the marker word here).

Negative result clauses and negative purpose clauses are rarely confused.  The latter are introduced by ne, the former by ut...non.
[blank]

[blank]
Here the result clause is actually an object clause governed by videret.  Another term for it is substantive clause of result (MF 233, AG 568).

NOTE:  The negative for this special kind of result clause is ne, rather than ut...non.

Main:  [action verb] or [state of being]

Sub.:  [dum] + [subjunctive verb]

blank
In this example, the dum-clause (combined here with modo) is almost an if-clause.  It states the provision necessary if the main clause is to be true.

NOTE:  dum plus the indicative mood is very much like cum plus the indicative—it is strictly temporal, and means "while."

Main:  [indicative future verb]

Sub.:  [si / nisi] + [indicative future verb]

[blank]
The main problem with conditional sentences is that they often do not follow textbook cases.

For instance, the formula above says that a future more vivid condition requires the future indicative in both clauses.  In our "if-clause," however, we have a future perfect indicative:  iussero.  The sense is clear, the future perfect adding greater precision to Cicero's view of the future.  But our example illustrates the considerable freedom enjoyed by the Romans in actual practice.

NOTE:  The future more vivid is so named because it requires the indicative mood.  That is, it refers to facts in the future.  It is therefore more realistic or vivid than the future less vivid, which requires the subjunctive.

Main:  [subjunctive present verb]

Sub.:  [si / nisi] + [subjunctive present verb]

[blank]
Once again, we see the difference between theory and reality when it comes to conditional sentences.

Our formula specifies the present subjunctive in both clauses.  In the main clause, however, we find the present indicative, videmur, in place of videamur.  We have, then, a mixed conditional.

Had Cicero written videamur, we would translate:  We would seem...if we should avoid...  Note the distinctly subjunctive translation.  In fact, the future less vivid is often called the "should-would" conditional.

NOTE:  The future less vivid is so named because it requires the subjunctive mood.  That is, it refers to almost-facts in the future.  It is therefore less realistic or vivid than the future more vivid, which requires the indicative.