adrianus wrote:Not strictly the same, I reckon...
because a vivid future condition is intended with protasis completed before apodosis.
calvinist wrote:...since they are identical in form in almost every instance.
adrianus wrote:calvinist wrote:...since they are identical in form in almost every instance.
Not so // Minimé!
four out of six forms differ between those tenses. Similarities of spelling are more likely to confuse the non-native speaker, not the native speaker, except if they don't care, of course.
quattuor figurae ex sex inter ista tempora distinguuntur. Is qui sermones latinos non sonat ante qui facundè sonat figuras eiusdem orthographiae confundet, nisi id non curae sit, certé.
Knowledge of ignorance is not a basis for deduction. Variation is likely between people and peoples, but that's not a reason to throw away the textbooks.calvinist wrote:Do we know with certainty that the distinctions in pronunciation were maintained by everyday speakers?
calvinist wrote:I still believe that if we could go back in time we would find that everyday speakers made little or no distinction between the two tenses.
.In Keil, I, p.340, ll.28-32, he wrote:Et in hac subiunctiva numero plurali uniformem declinationem perfecti et futuri temporis accentus distinguit. perfectum enim acuto accentu declinatur, futurum circumflectitur, quasi perfecto cum dixerimus, item futuro cum dixerimus.
Palmer, The Latin Language, p.314 wrote:But in the main the use of the Latin subjunctive of cautious assertion of future events is derivable from the ancient IE. potential optative.
lauragibbs wrote:I'm quite certain that for great swaths of Latin speakers (classical and later, native and non-native) who both made and used those Latin fables and proverbs, the distinctions Adrianus maintains here would not be especially pertinent
lauragibbs wrote:Adrianus, when it is used with ne, of course it is subjunctive... Indeed, we know it is subjunctive because of the ne. The essential issue there, linguistically, is the REDUNDANCY: Latin needs not just indicatives and subjunctives, but also distinctions like the distinction between ne and non to make sure the meaning is clearly conveyed; the form credideris by itself would not be enough - hence the distinction also between ne and non.
lauragibbs wrote:and really, once you distinguish between ne and non, I'm not sure whether Latin speakers, even highly educated ones, would even consciously resolve the verb form ... but that's a purely hypothetical question, unless you can think of some way to actually answer it - is there a Latin grammarian who discusses such examples?
lauragibbs wrote: I imagine you would be appalled by most of the kinds of Latin that are of interest to me, when the vowel length distinction had long since broken down.
lauragibbs wrote: that kind of distinction is almost impossible for us to recover from the limited written record of Latin, but of course there were different registers in Latin; sociolinguistics and pragmatics are linguistic dimensions that are just as important as phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.
lauragibbs wrote:...the chaos is in the Middle Ages - the Renaissance is imitating classical style and usage (even hypercorrectly); this was not always the goal of medieval writers. The medieval writers often had no idea about vowel quantities, and they also had no [!?] erudite references to help them as the Renaissance writers did. The rhyming Latin poetry of the Middle Ages is like nothing classical, and like nothing neo-classical from the Renaissance - but I find it to be wonderful stuff. Often the rhymes depend on very un-classical pronunciation.
calvinist wrote:Adrianus, I still would like to hear your response to my long post from earlier today explaining why I think the distinction can be ignored.
calvinist wrote:I want to clarify my position, which I think Laura will agree with as well. I am not saying that there is no distinction between the two. I am saying, however, that the distinction is one that an average speaker probably either did not notice or did not care to pay attention to. I am also saying that I believe the two began to merge into one, and this was probably well under way by the Imperial period. This would be due to two things: 1) the similarity in form (even if there was a distinction in accent) 2) the similarity in meaning/usage (even though there was a subtle distinction).
calvinist wrote:I want to bring up a point you made earlier, Adrianus. You referred to English "I will have... / I might have...". I contend that there isn't a significant difference semantically at all. If I say, "By tomorrow morning I will have finished my paper" and I have to go to the emergency room I will be found to be a liar...In this case though, I think the distinctions are pretty much non-existent.
brookter wrote:* In the sentence I quoted, there is no way of knowing whether Orberg had in mind the perfect subjunctive or the future perfect. Each would have been grammatically correct.
* It is possible to distinguish a difference in meaning, between the two, although this is slight — because the concept of the subjunctive and the future both include uncertainty — and one that may well have been ignored by most speakers.