Are these cum clauses really correct?

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
Dingbats
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Sweden

Are these cum clauses really correct?

Post by Dingbats »

I've always had problems with cum clauses, so I downloaded A Latin Grammar and read what it said about it. If I understood it correctly, these sentences should be correct:

Because I saw Marcus, he was scared.
Cum Marcum viderem, timuit.

When I saw Marcus, he was scared.
Cum Marcum viderem, timuit.

You can replace the imperfects with pluperfects if you want, the sentences will still be the same. Is this really correct, is it true that how you interpret sentences like these sometimes relies on context?

adz000
Textkit Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 9:45 pm
Location: Cantabrigiae Massachusettensium

Post by adz000 »

eheu! illa de verbo 'cum' perfida doctrina!

easdem ac tu difficultates habebam, donec "A New Latin Syntax" ab E.C. Woodock conscriptum pellegi, quod non satis laudare possim (praecipue #229-239 quod ad nos attinet) si paragraphum totam libro approbando impendam. sed maioris momenti est pauca de hoc verbo disserere priusquam vel tu vel ego dormitem.


'Cum' with the indicative is always strictly temporal and does not imply any connections between the events: When it was March, I sold my car.
If you wanted to say 'When I saw Marcus, he was afraid', this would be the preferred way of saying it.

With the subjunctive the situation is trickier. First of all, the subjunctive can ONLY indicate three things:
causality (because)
concession (although)
circumstantiality (more on this at end)
Note that none of these is strictly 'temporal' as with the indicative.

Second of all, the time relations are subject to the same rules of sequence of tenses as indirect questions. In primary sequence you have the present and perfect subjunctives; in secondary (historical) sequence the imperfect and pluperfect subjunctives. 'Cum' clauses will not make any sense unless you've got sequence of tenses down.

So if you wanted to translate "Because I saw Marcus, he was scared." you would have to use the pluperfect subjunctive, since the seeing occurred BEFORE the fearing (in general cause precedes effect), and the main sentence is in historical sequence.
Cum Marcum vidissem, timuit.
(it's true there is some ambiguity in the English)

If you used the imperfect subjunctive,
Cum Marcum viderem, timuit.
It would mean: because I was seeing Marcus, he was afraid (both actions occurring at the same time). This is a rare thing to have to say. It could also mean 'Although I was seeing Marcus, he was afraid.'

So the imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive do make a huge difference.

Now if the sentence were in the present, "Because I saw Marcus (yesterday), he is (now) afraid" you would have:
Cum Marcum viderim, timet.
The perfect subjunctive, because you are in present sequence.


Now the hard part. What is that circumstantiality thing? It is nearly the same as cum with the indicative. The difference is that with the subjunctive you're implying some very slight connection between the act in the cum clause and the main sentence. Another way to put it is to say that there's some 'descriptive' or 'narrative' force in the cum. Unfortunately by Cicero's time this is by far the most common use of 'cum'.

'Cum' circumstantial can ONLY be used in secondary sequence; in other words, it ONLY goes with an imperfect or a pluperfect subjunctive. If you seem a 'cum' with a perfect or present subjunctive, the 'cum' must mean either causality or concession.

So in this sense, 'cum' with the pluperfect subjunctive often simply means 'after such-and-such', while 'cum' with the imperfect subjunctive is the same thing as a 'dum' clause.



And if this weren't enough, you ought to be aware that cum can be used of general or repeated action ('whenever'), to indicate how long since something happened, and there's also the infamous 'cum inversum', which is nothing to shake a stick at.

I hope I'm mostly right about this. Good luck!

Dingbats
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Dingbats »

Wow, thanks for your long reply! :D

But can I use the indicative in any case, assuming that the meaning is strictly temporal of course? Like:
Cum Marcum videro, timebit.

adz000
Textkit Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 9:45 pm
Location: Cantabrigiae Massachusettensium

Post by adz000 »

Yep.

If it's in the indicative you can use any tense you'd like with a cum temporal.

Dingbats
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Dingbats »

Thanks a lot, adz000! :D

Post Reply