futurum in praeterito
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
futurum in praeterito
could someone explain to me how the pluperfect subjunctive becomes a future tense?
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
Re: futurum in praeterito
does it? to what are you referring?vir litterarum wrote:could someone explain to me how the pluperfect subjunctive becomes a future tense?
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:21 am
Re: futurum in praeterito
The perfect subjunctive conjugates like the future perfect (excpet for first person singular).vir litterarum wrote:could someone explain to me how the pluperfect subjunctive becomes a future tense?
The pluperfect subjunctive is unique (+isse+personal endings).
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
Re: futurum in praeterito
if that is what vir means, the perfect subjunctive did not become the future perfect indicative, they merely coincide in form (like the present active infinitive and the imperfect subjunctive stem). The perfect subjunctive can also have a long i in the termination, distinguishing it from the future perfect indicative which has always a short i.Feles in silva wrote:The perfect subjunctive conjugates like the future perfect (excpet for first person singular).vir litterarum wrote:could someone explain to me how the pluperfect subjunctive becomes a future tense?
The pluperfect subjunctive is unique (+isse+personal endings).
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:59 am
I think that he may have been referring to the pluperfect subjunctive's ability to represent an event of a time more advanced than that of the leading verb:
Demonstravit, si id fecissent, mvltos interitvros (esse). (This is not a contrafactual conditional sentence. It is a future-less-vivid conditional sentence subordinated by a verb in the perfect.)
He showed that, if they should have done this, many would die.
Oratia Recta: Si id fecerint, mvlti intereant. (Future-less-vivid conditional sentence)
If they should have done this, many should die.
'Demonstravit' is furthest in the past.
'fecissent' represents an event which takes place after 'demonstravit'.
'interitvros (esse)' is the most chronologically advanced event of the three.
Demonstravit, si id fecissent, mvltos interitvros (esse). (This is not a contrafactual conditional sentence. It is a future-less-vivid conditional sentence subordinated by a verb in the perfect.)
He showed that, if they should have done this, many would die.
Oratia Recta: Si id fecerint, mvlti intereant. (Future-less-vivid conditional sentence)
If they should have done this, many should die.
'Demonstravit' is furthest in the past.
'fecissent' represents an event which takes place after 'demonstravit'.
'interitvros (esse)' is the most chronologically advanced event of the three.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
What I do not understand is how a perfect such as demonstravit can be conceived as being further back in time than the pluperfect fecissent. Isn't pluperfect by nature a tense which expresses an action which happened before another action in the past. I don't see how fecissent can express future action off of the perfect tense.
- Lucus Eques
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
I was looking at conditions in Allen and Greenough's grammar and I was confused by this excerpt.
The futurum in praeterito is a tense future relatively to a time absolutely past. It denotes a future act transferred to the point of view of past time, and hence is naturally expressed by a past tense of the Subjunctive: thus dixisset, he would have said= dicturus fuit, he was about to say [but did not]. As that which looks towards the future from some point in the past has a natural limit in present time, such a tense (the imperfect subjunctive) came naturally to be used to express a present condition purely ideal, that is to say, contrary to fact.
The futurum in praeterito is a tense future relatively to a time absolutely past. It denotes a future act transferred to the point of view of past time, and hence is naturally expressed by a past tense of the Subjunctive: thus dixisset, he would have said= dicturus fuit, he was about to say [but did not]. As that which looks towards the future from some point in the past has a natural limit in present time, such a tense (the imperfect subjunctive) came naturally to be used to express a present condition purely ideal, that is to say, contrary to fact.